1

TWENTY YEARS AFTER CHICO MENDES: EXTRACTIVE RESERVES’ EXPANSION, CATTLE ADOPTION AND EVOLVING SELF-DEFINITION AMONG RUBBER TAPPERS

IN THE BRAZILIAN AMAZON

By

CARLOS VALÉRIO AGUIAR GOMES

A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT

OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2009

2

© 2009 Carlos Valério Aguiar Gomes

3

To the memory of my father, Carlos Maria da Silva Gomes. I know you were so proud of me. I wish I would have had the opportunity to give you this good news.

4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I have completed this journey with the encouragement, guidance, and support of

many people and institutions. I am very thankful to the members of my dissertation committee:

Dr. Nigel Smith, Dr. Marianne Schmink, Dr. Stephen Perz and Dr. Michael Binford for their

support and valuable guidance along the way. Dr. Nigel Smith, my chair, has been by my side at

every step, sustaining my ideas and encouraging me to move forward through our many

conversations that help put my research within a broader perspective of historical and current

natural resource use in the Amazon. Dr. Perz has always been a source of new ways to approach

understanding livelihood transformations of rubber tappers communities in Acre, and his

guidance was critical in helping me structure my dissertation. Dr. Binford has given me much

constructive criticism and has challenged me to think critically about my research questions and

methods for land use science and to understand how exciting and the broader field of Geography

can be. Finally, Dr. Schmink has been a wonderful and constant source of support and

encouragement since I first thought about coming to study in the United States. During these

years in graduate school, she has given me guidance that goes behind the wall of academia. I

express my heartfelt thanks for the professional inspiration she has given me and for her

friendship.

I gratefully acknowledge the support of the Brazilian Science Council (CNPq-Ministry for

Science and Technology of Brazil), Instituto Internacional de Educação do Brasil (IEB-

Programa BECA) and the Tropical Conservation and Development Program /Center for Latin

American Studies-UF for fellowships that funded my doctoral studies at the University of

Florida. I am also grateful for financial support for fieldwork granted by the Center for

Environmental Research and Conservation (CERC) Overbrook Fellowship at Columbia

University, International Foundation for Science (IFS), World Wildlife Fund’s Prince Bernard

5

Fellowship for Nature Conservation and the Charles A. and Anne Morrow Lindbergh

Foundation.

I also am grateful to colleagues at UF’s Center for Latin American Studies/Tropical

Conservation and Development Program. Special thanks go to Dr. Charles Wood, Jon Dain, Dr.

Karen Kainer, Hannah Covert, Patricia Sampaio, Wanda Carter, and Margarita Gandía. I also

thank Desiree Price in the Department of Geography for always being helpful and friendly. I am

also grateful for the many people and organizations in Acre, Brazil that helped me in the

implementation of my fieldwork. I first thank the Research and Extension in Agroforestry

Systems Group (PESACRE) for providing institutional and logistical support during the study

period. Special thanks at PESACRE go to Eduardo Amaral (Cazuza), Adair Duarte, Hilza Arcos

and Juraci Pacheco. Similarly, the Zoobotanical Park at the Federal University of Acre provided

me with a place to work while in Acre. The research group there helped smooth out logistical

arrangements and made me feel welcome in their work space. Special thanks go to Dr. Irving

Foster Brown who was my undergraduate advisor at UFAC, and since then has been a long term

source of support and advice. I would also like to thank my colleagues in Acre, Willian Flores,

Silvia Brilhante, Elza Mendoza, Monica de los Rios, Andrea Alechandre, Arthur Leite, Ricardo

Dantas and Kleder for their support and friendship. Thanks also go to my colleagues Francisco

Carlos at Embrapa-Acre, Christiane Ehringhaus at Cifor in Belém, Mauro Pires at MMA in

Brasília for sharing conversations, ideas and data for my research. Many thanks go also to Amy

Rosenthal for all her great help on editing my writing and Doriam Borges for helping me with

statistical analysis.

While at UF, I am very grateful to have made many friends that provided me with support

and many enriching and memorable moments. To name a few, Geraldo Silva has been a fountain

6

of friendship and support, always being there. Thanks also go to Lucimar Souza, Ane Alencar,

Alain Michel, Diana Alvira, Alfredo Rios, Marcos Lentini, Leonardo Martinez, Leonardo

Pacheco, Christopher Baraloto and Kara, Simone Athayde, Rafael Rojas, Andrea Chavez, Jeffrey

Hoelle, and Iran Rodrigues.

I am flattered by the warmth of the rubber tapper families in the Chico Mendes Reserve

who took me into their homes and shared their knowledge and concerns with incredible

generosity. I am greatly indebted with them. During my two years in the fieldwork, I had the

opportunity to collaborate with Jacqueline Vadjunec. We decided to join our dissertation

proposal together and thus spent countless hours in the field together. What could have been a

one time attempt on “innovative models” of graduate students collaboration in the field, have

fostered a bigger sense of mutual collaboration and strengthened commitments for further and

long-term collaboration among us. As my colleague and friend she has been of great support

through this dissertation. I would like to thank Amy Duchelle for both supporting me through

this dissertation and also for pulling me away from it with her love and carinho.

Last but definitely not least, I would like to express my love and thanks to my family for

continuously providing me with love and understanding. This accomplishment would not be

possible without the strength you give me when I am back home in Pará, Brazil.

7

TABLE OF CONTENTS page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...............................................................................................................4

LIST OF TABLES.........................................................................................................................10

LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................................11

LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................................11

ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................................12

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................14

Research Questions.................................................................................................................19 Overview of Methods .............................................................................................................20 Structure of the Dissertation ...................................................................................................23 Extractive Reserve and the People and Parks Debate ............................................................29

2 EVOLUTION OF EXTRACTIVE RESERVES AS A CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY IN THE BRAZILIAN AMAZONIA..................................34

Introduction.............................................................................................................................34 Evolution of the ERs Establishment: Contemporary Importance ...................................36 Analytical Framework: A Political Ecology Multi-Scale Analysis ................................40

Data and Methods ...................................................................................................................42 Results.....................................................................................................................................42

Cross State Analysis: Federal and State Extractive Reserves .........................................42 The Evolution of Extractive Reserves Policy: Three Stages...........................................44 Current Trends: the First Wave States vs the Second Wave ...........................................48 Regional Development Dynamics’ Favoring or Constraining ER ..................................50 Continued Demands and New Frontiers for ERs ............................................................57

Conclusions.............................................................................................................................59

3 ADOPTION OF CATTLE RANCHING AMONG COLONIST SMALLHOLDERS AND FOREST EXTRACTIVISTS IN THE BRAZILIAN AMAZON: HISTORICAL-CULTURAL CONTRASTS AND ECONOMIC EXPLANATIONS ...................................62

Introduction.............................................................................................................................62 Cattle Ranching in the Brazilian Amazon ..............................................................................63 Study Cases.............................................................................................................................68

Uruará ..............................................................................................................................70 Xapuri ..............................................................................................................................73

Field Survey Methods and Data .............................................................................................81

8

Uruará ..............................................................................................................................82 Xapuri/Chico Mendes Ertractive Reserve .......................................................................84

Cattle Adoption Among Smallholder Colonists and Forest Extractivists ..............................85 Socioeconomic Comparisons ..........................................................................................86 Comparisons of Natural Resource Management .............................................................93 Comparisons of Pasture and Cattle Management............................................................97

Discussion.............................................................................................................................102 Comparative Analysis...........................................................................................................105 Conclusions...........................................................................................................................108

4 LAND-USE/LAND-COVER CHANGE AMONG RUBBER TAPPERS IN THE CHICO MENDES EXTRACTIVE RESERVE, ACRE, BRAZIL ......................................109

Introduction...........................................................................................................................109 Study Area ............................................................................................................................114

Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve.................................................................................114 Land Use History and Livelihood Trajectories Among Rubber Tappers in Acre.........116

Methods ................................................................................................................................120 Site Selection .................................................................................................................120 Remote Sensing Analysis ..............................................................................................121 Household Surveys........................................................................................................126

Results...................................................................................................................................128 Remote Sensing Results ................................................................................................128 Household Survey .........................................................................................................132

Discussion.............................................................................................................................140 Conclusions...........................................................................................................................144

5 WHAT MAKES A RUBBER TAPPER IN THE BRAZILIAN AMAZON?: CULTURAL, LIVELIHOODS AND INSTITUTIONAL-ORGANIZATIONAL FACTORS UNDERLYING SELF-DEFINITION...............................................................146

Introduction...........................................................................................................................146 Rubber Tappers’ Historical Trajectories and Definition Construction.................................147 Data and Methods .................................................................................................................156

Selection of the Study Sites...........................................................................................156 Household Surveys........................................................................................................157 Operational Definitions, Measurement and Hypothesized Effect of Explanatory

Variables ....................................................................................................................158 Socio-economic indicators .....................................................................................160 Institutional context indicators ...............................................................................162 Land-use indicators ................................................................................................164 Location indicators .................................................................................................164 Reserve wide land-use rules ...................................................................................165

Logistic Multiple Regression Model .............................................................................166 Results...................................................................................................................................167

Analysis of Descriptive Findings ..................................................................................167 Analysis of the Multivariate Regression Model ............................................................171

9

Discussion.............................................................................................................................174 Conclusions...........................................................................................................................181

6 CONCLUSIONS: .................................................................................................................184

APPENDIX

A CORRELATION ANALYSIS .............................................................................................190

B QUESTIONNAIRE USED IN THE CHICO MENDES EXTRACTIVE RESERVE.........195

LIST OF REFERENCES.............................................................................................................212

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................................231

10

LIST OF TABLES

Table page 2-1 Number and area of federal and state ERs in the Brasilian Amazon.................................44

3-1 Cattle herds and pasture areas in the legal Amazon and Brazil, 1985-1995......................65

3-2 Crop cultivation, cattle ranching, and forest extractivism in Uruará and Xapuri ..............73

3-3 Socioeconomic indicators, farm households in Uruará, Pará ............................................88

3-4 Socioeconomic indicators, seringal households in the CMER, Acre ................................89

3-5 Natural resource management, farm households in Uruará, Pará......................................95

3-6 Natural resource management, seringal households in the CMER, Acre..........................96

3-7 Cattle and pasture management, farm households in Uruará, Pará, and seringal households in the CMER, Acre .........................................................................................99

4-1 Characteristics of the study sites......................................................................................121

4-2 Land-use classification schema........................................................................................124

4-3 Percent deforestation in six seringais from 1986-2003....................................................130

4-4 Percent secondary succession in six seringais from 1986-2003......................................131

4-5 Area and percent remaining in secondary succession and later reused (swidden/fallow cycle) between 1986-2003 ....................................................................131

4-6 Percent of households involved in market activitis in 2003 ............................................133

4-7 Summary statistics from household surveys: land-use and livelihood statistics .............135

4-8 Livelihood index, deforestation, and land-use correlations .............................................137

5-1 Operational definitions and hypothesized relationships of explanatory and outcome variables ...........................................................................................................................159

5-2 Descriptive statistics for socioeconomic aspects, institutional context, land-use practices, location and land-use rules, among households in the CMER ........................168

5-3 Multivariable model of household definition as rubber tapper regressed on household background, institutional context, land-use practices and regulations in the CMER ......172

11

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure page 2-1 Number and age of federal and state extractive reserves in Amazonia. ............................45

2-2 Spatial distribution and age of federal and state ER in Amazonia ....................................46

2-3 Evolution of land under ER in the first and second wave states of ER system .................50

3-1 Map of the two study cases in the Brazilian Amazon........................................................69

3-2 Change in crop cultivation, cattle ranching, and forest extractivism, Uruará, PA ............74

3-3 Change in crop cultivation, cattle ranching, and forest extractivism, Xapuri, AC............82

4-1 Study area and study sites within the CMER...................................................................115

4-2 Location of the study communities within the CMER ....................................................120

4-3 Trajectories of LUCC in the seringais in Assis Brasil within the CMER .......................129

4-4 Trajectories of LUCC in the seringais in Brasiléia within the CMER ............................129

5-1 Location of the CMER.....................................................................................................157

12

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

TWENTY YEARS AFTER CHICO MENDES: EXTRACTIVE RESERVES’ EXPANSION,

CATTLE ADOPTION AND EVOLVING SELF-DEFINITION AMONG RUBBER TAPPERS IN THE BRAZILIAN AMAZON

By

Carlos Valério Aguiar Gomes

May 2009 Chair: Nigel Smith Major: Geography

In the 20 years since the murder of rubber tapper leader Chico Mendes and subsequent

creation of Extractive Reserves (ERs), ERs have become a popular conservation and

development tool in the Brazilian Amazon. However, ER residents have faced challenges to

improving their livelihoods based on sustainable use of the forest, leading to a shift towards

cattle ranching and a questioning of rubber tappers’ status as sustainable forest managers. This

dissertation focuses on three core themes. The first examines overall ER policy evolution over

two decades in the Amazon. The second examines issues of land-use/land-cover change and

changing livelihoods among forest extractivists in the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve

(CMER) in Xapuri/Acre compared with cattle adoption by smallholder colonists. The third

explores the implications of livelihood changes for the evolving self-definition of rubber tappers.

This dissertation is guided by theoretical perspectives of political ecology, environment

and development, and land-use/land-cover science. It analyzes socioeconomic data gathered

through multiple household surveys and government agencies, qualitative information from key

informant interviews, and land-cover change detection.

13

Sixty-four ERs have been created in the Brazilian Amazon since 1990, spanning over 12

million hectares. Different waves of ER establishment responded to political and regional

development dynamics at multiple scales that favored or constrained their implementation. In

Xapuri, the size of cattle herds rose by 200% from 1990-2005, and throughout the CMER, land

cover change detection from 1986-2003 showed some communities nearly surpassing the

allowable limits of deforestation. Rubber tapper households have begun pursuing diverse

livelihood activities that include not only extractivism, but also small-scale market cultivation,

and increasingly, cattle production. Self-identification as a rubber tapper was positively

correlated to larger landholding size, more knowledge of management rules, and participation in

community activities. Conversely, more recent occupancy in the CMER and, surprisingly,

involvement in the official social movement were negatively correlated with respondent’s self-

identification as a rubber tapper.

This dissertation contributes to the debate of ERs as an environmental policy in Amazon.

Despite advances, challenges remain for ERs to promote sustainable development, particularly in

light of changing livelihoods and continued pressure at development frontiers.

14

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

This dissertation focuses on provocative subjects in the debate about forest dwellers’

conservation and development strategies, changing livelihoods conditions, and evolving self-

definition in the Brazilian Amazon. These subjects are: 1) the evolution of the Extractive

Reserve as a conservation and development policy; 2) land-use/land-cover change changes

patterns, highlighting the adoption of cattle ranching by forest extractivists; and 3) the evolving

self-definition of forest extractivists as sustainable forest managers in the context of their

historical and current development trajectories.

The Amazon contains the largest remaining contiguous forest in the tropics, but also faces

some of the strongest development pressures and one of the highest deforestation rates in the

world. Development pressures are likely to increase with new large infrastructure projects such

as highways and dams, and expansion of agribusiness due to increased demand for cattle, soy,

and emerging biofuels. Access to and control of forest areas will continue to be highly contested

by individual and organized smallholders, cattle ranchers, loggers, and agribusinesses. Finding

solutions that protect forests and forest communities by guarding against both deforestation and

displacement is one of the biggest challenges for balancing conservation and development in the

Amazon, as well as in other tropical forest regions.

The state of Acre in the southwestern Brazilian Amazon is the birthplace of the rubber

tapper movement, which was the first grassroots movement in Brazil to advocate conservation of

Amazonian forests through the establishment of Extractive Reserves (ERs). Chico Mendes was

the major force behind the movement and due to his campaign against forest destruction was

killed by cattle ranchers in 1988. ERs, federal lands where non-indigenous forest smallholders

hold usufruct rights to forest resources, were conceptualized as the “rubber tapper agrarian

15

reform” (CNS 1985). The ER concept’s initial assumption was that an economy based on non-

timber forest products could increase the economic value of forests and rural income, offering a

variety of subsistence resources for extractivist communities, while ensuring ecological

sustainability. In the past twenty years, ERs have gained a solid foothold in Amazonian forest

policy and have be seen as a conservation model that “closes off the frontier” in contested forest

areas by securing spaces for forest-dependent smallholders and stemming the advance of large-

scale deforestation processes, thereby reducing the costs of regional development to forests and

people. The ER has come to be seen as the ultimate, ultra-flexible conservation tool in the

Brazilian Amazon. As a result, ER area has increased significantly; it encompasses a diversity of

rural social groups with a variety of forest-based livelihood systems, a range of ecossistems, and

strikingly different state political contexts. For example, both smallholder colonist farmers (e.g.,

Transamazon Highway) and traditional riverbank people in the eastern Amazon have

successfully lobbied for ERs due to the continued pressure of large-scale cattle ranching and

soybean production at development frontiers.

Although large-scale cattle ranching has historically been one of the most important land

uses in the Amazon, leaving widespread deforestation in its wake and giving rise to the rubber

tapper struggle, cattle ranching practices have continued to evolve in the region. Today, ranching

is not limited to large-scale processes, but has become a practice among smallholders who

employ diverse land tenure systems and come from a variety of cultural backgrounds – including

in Extractive Reserves. While ERs have become pivotal to Amazonian conservation policy,

cattle ranching has emerged among rubber tapper households in key ER areas, including the

Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve (CMER), a symbolic site of the early struggles and social

16

movement’s success. This marks an ironic departure from the ER’s original role in closing the

frontier and preventing large-scale cattle ranching expansion in the region.

During the past two decades of ER experience, rubber tapper communities’ views of

development and livelihood options have also evolved, continuing to respond to changing land

uses and development trends occurring outside ER areas. ER populations have faced repeated

challenges to improving their livelihoods based solely on sustainable use of the forest. Despite

several political and development experiments to improve the economic viability of ERs by

creating markets for new products extracted from the forest, forest communities continue to face

economic hardship and encounter difficulties in both establishing market opportunities for

extractivist products and maintaining consistent income throughout the year. Due to diminishing

returns from extractivism and increasing pressure to diversify production and stabilize seasonal

yield, rubber tappers are increasingly driven to small-scale cattle ranching and cash-crop

agriculture practices, adopting land-use activities that have more destructive impacts on forest

cover and exacerbating deforestation in ER areas. Cattle ranching in rubber tapper communities

have become a major driver of land-cover change in ERs, despite the fact that it runs counter to

the ecologically sustainable vision of the ER and the cultural history of rubber tapper

communities in the region.

Cattle ranching among rubber tappers might represent the most important dilemma for

Amazonian conservation because of its political implications for both the extractivist

communities and for the ER model as a conservation strategy. Given its conflict with the

theoretical underpinnings and ecological sustainability of ERs, cattle ranching challenges the

conservation objectives of the ER model. Furthermore, it throws into question rubber tappers’

traditional notion as successful forest managers living sustainably and peacefully with the forest,

17

and articulators of a powerful social and environmental justice movement in defense of the

forest.

This rubber tapper definition was most actively vocalized when rubber tapper groups

fought together against cattle ranchers and proposed the ER concept. As a marginalized social

group, rubber tappers were relegated to an isolated, local arena for their grievances, but the

urgent threat of large-scale cattle ranching sharpened their traditional definition and provided

them a platform with which to lead a diverse group of allies across a mobilized global

community committed to preserving the environment. In this new context, in which non-timber

forest products have failed to be the panacea that was anticipated, the expectations assigned to

the rubber tapper movement need to be revisited and potentially redefined. The stereotype of the

rubber tappers as "forest stewards" could be called into question with their adoption of cattle

ranching, but it could only be questioned with thoughtful consideration of the socio-economic

and development factors that they are faced in Amazonia today.

Despite two decades of ER implementation and its centrality to people-based conservation,

there has yet to be a region-wide analysis of this model. In order to fill this gap, this dissertation

first examines ER evolution across space and time in the Amazon by analyzing the expansion of

Extractive Reserves over a 20-year period with a multi-scale approach at the federal and state

levels. This work also provides an analysis of the political and regional development dynamics,

showing how these dynamics have affected ER policy and either favored or constrained the

establishment of ERs.

Given the growing importance of cattle ranching in Amazonia and its expansion among

diverse social groups, including many inhabitants of ERs, this dissertation then analyzes the

emergence of cattle ranching among smallholders in two ways. First, I conduct a comparative

18

analysis of cattle ranching adoption among colonist smallholders and forest extractivists in the

Amazon, exploring why livelihood strategies among heretofore distinct social actors are

converging in a highly heterogeneous socio-economic region. To do this, I perform a

comparative socio-economic study across space and time of two municipalities located in the

eastern and western Brazilian Amazon, respectively: Uruará, in Pará state, comprised primarily

of colonist farmers, and Xapuri, the birthplace of the rubber tappers’ movement in the state of

Acre. I address the shift toward cattle ranching among these two historically contrasting social

groups, focusing on economic market forces and other socio-economic factors as explanations

for expanding cattle raising among groups not previously noted for ranching in Amazonia.

Second, I link land-use practices among rubber tappers to remote sensing data, addressing land-

use/land-cover changes in the CMER that appear to be the result of forest dwellers’ changing

livelihoods, illustrating that as cattle ranching plays an increasingly important role in livelihood

strategies, corresponding growth in pasture is trigging deforestation in the Reserve.

Finally, I consider the implications of changing livelihoods and land-use practices for

rubber tapper definition in ERs. Since cattle ranching have emerged to challenge both the

ecological sustainability of ERs and the popular cultural definition of rubber tappers, this

dissertation addresses the historical-cultural trajectories and current livelihood practices of

rubber tappers. I highlight historical-cultural factors that shape rubber tapper definition,

systematically addressing a series of indicators that represent historically important strategies

and contemporary changing socio-economic circumstances in the very place where the ER

concept originated twenty years ago.

19

Research Questions

This dissertation examines key questions that are strongly linked to the central and

evolving themes regarding the relationship between forest conservation and livelihood

development of rural people in the Brazilian Amazon.

The first theme examines a major public policy for sustainable development by offering a

temporal and spatial analysis of Extractive Reserve as a conservation and development strategy,

along with current outcomes for continuing ER policy in the region. The second theme highlights

livestock as the main driver of deforestation as land is occupied in frontier areas, from which

emerged the Extractive Reserve concept as an alternate development strategy. While debates

over cattle ranching in the Amazon have often focused on large properties, observers

increasingly recognize that social actors aside from capitalist interests are buying cattle and

converting forested land to pasture. As forest extractivists and small colonist farmers

increasingly engage in cattle ranching, it is crucial to understand the factors that stimulate the

expansion of cattle production among diverse groups, and the role that cattle production has in

providing revenues for either subsistence or accumulation objectives among these groups. The

third theme refers to the complex self-defintion of rubber tappers, which is shaped by their

recognition as sustainable forest managers, but faces current controversy as land uses and

livelihoods continue to evolve in Amazon Extractive Reserves. The central questions addressed

in this dissertation are:

(i) Given nearly two decades of Amazon Extractive Reserves, how has the ER model evolved in light of social movements, as well as federal and state policies, political and regional development dynamics and interactions among different actors at distinct levels? How have these elements favored or constrained the establishment of ERs in different states at different moments in the recent history of the Brazilian Amazon?

(ii) Why do livelihood strategies converge toward cattle ranching among small-farm colonists and forest extractivists despite their profound historical and cultural differences

20

and far-flung locations in a highly heterogeneous socio-economic region such as the Brazilian Amazon?

(iii) What are the current dominant land use practices and livelihoods of extractivists in the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve, and how do they affect the amounts and rates of deforestation in the reserve?

(iv) Given their complex historical livelihood trajectories and notable accomplishments as articulators of a successful social and environmental movement, which institutional-organizational, cultural and livelihoods factors currently shape rubber tapper self-definition in the face of evolving socioeconomic and development circumstances in the Amazon?

Addressing this study’s research questions demands the adoption of an eclectic approach

that relies on diverse disciplinary perspectives, a combination of qualitative and quantitative

methodologies. In the following I will present an overview of both the research site and

methodological procedures developed throughout each chapter of the dissertation.

Overview of Methods

This dissertation seeks to understand questions about socio-environmental processes

underway at different scales in the Brazilian Amazon. The study draws on research methods

from the social and land-use/land-cover sciences, involving multi-scalar qualitative and

quantitative approach. The evolution of an ER model in Amazonia, involved a region-wide

approach of data analysis. The comparison of livelihoods among colonist smallholders in Uruará

(Pará) and forest extractivist in Xapuri (Acre), required the aggregation of multi-sited and

temporal household surveys. The dynamics driving land-use land-cover changes and livelihood

transformation within the CMER, relied on the analysis of household survey and quantitative

approaches (key informant interviews), as well as land classifications and change detection.

Social Methods

In order to provide a region-wide analysis of the evolution of the ERs, I created/assembled

a database of ERs created in Amazonia from 1990 to 2007. Information for the database was

collected through a variety of sources: the Brazilian Environmental Institute (IBAMA) and other

21

state environmental agencies, and review of the literature, news reports and and internet sources.

The database is composed of the following information about ERs: year of creation, status as

state or federal, size, location, population, and main economic resources. It also contains a GIS

based set of information of shape files.

For a comparative analysis of livelihoods between colonist families in Uruará and forest

homesteads in Xapuri, this work draws on data for two time points in both sites, and featured

households that received follow-up interviews, facilitating temporal comparisons. Survey data

for Uruará refer to 1996 (261 households) and 2002 (143 households). For Xapuri, survey data

refer to 2000, with an initial sample of 66 households, and 2004/2005 with a more extensive

questionnaire and a larger sample, totaling 149 households. Panels were defined on the basis of

whether a household was interviewed at both time points in the two data sets for both sites. The

greater detail in the survey data and the ability to compare across sites and over time affords a

richer portrayal of the circumstances and dynamics of livelihoods transformations among small

farm colonists and forest extractivists in isolated areas of the Brazilian Amazon. More specific

details about the survey and statistical techniques applied can be found in Chapter 3.

While this dissertation used multiple datasets (chapter 2 and 3), I only carried out

fieldwork research in the CMER, which is explored in comparative terms in Chapter 3, and is the

central theme for the next chapters (4 and 5). Those chapters includes more concentrated

analyzes of the 2004/2005 survey data and are the result of my intensive fieldwork carried out in

eight seringais (rubber estates) within three municipalities of the CMER: Assis Brasil (São

Francisco, Icuriã, Paraguaçu), Brasiléia (Humaita, Porongaba, Filipinas) and Xapuri (São João

do Iracema, Indêpendencia). Seringais were chosen with the assistance of reserve leaders, and

were stratified based on traditional extractive orientation versus non-traditional market

22

orientations. The survey data were collected over almost two years of intensive fieldwork in the

CMER between January 2003 and July 2005. A total of 149 household interviews were

completed within the eight seringais by the author and field collaborator, J. Vadjunec, in

conjunction with a local non-governmental organization (NGO), the Group for Research and

Extension in Agroforestry Systems in Acre (PESACRE). Each interview took about three hours

to complete, and contained open-ended and structured questions regarding specific land-use

production and sale of agricultural and extractive products, small animal and cattle production,

as well as specific questions regarding prospective scenarios, motivations for cattle ranching.

Additionally, I gathered detailed data regarding labor and capital investments, as well as off-farm

income from wage labor, government jobs, and social services. I also collected information about

household characteristics and history such as household composition, gender, age, origin, wealth,

and access transportation and markets. Finally, I recorded opinions of the householders’

perceived advantages and disadvantages as residents of an Extractive Reserve, past and current

roles of social movement organizations and potential development projects for improving

householders’ well-being.

Field research in these seringais required intensive fieldwork and comprised several

interwoven activities. Field trips last for 8-12 days at a time with overnight homestays, which

always facilitated the application of a mixed-methods quantitative and qualitative approach. The

qualitative approach involved observations and informal conversation about controversial issues

over land-use preferences, government agencies and institutions, and economic, social, political

opportunities and constraints faced by residents of the CMER, as well as others aspects of daily

life in the seringal. These conversations often provided important insight for the structured

questions on the questionnaire. Various aspects of these mixed-methods approach inform each of

23

the three stand-alone articles. A series of quantitative methods are employed for data analysis,

and qualitative information is used to provide a richer basis for the interpretation. The data were

entered into an excel database and a codebook was created to facilitate statistical analysis with

SPSS program. In the codebook, approximately 400 variables were defined. More specific

details about the survey and methods of data analysis can be found in Chapters 3, 4, and, 5. A

copy of the questionnaire utilized for the 2004/2005 household survey is provided in appendix C.

Remote Sensing

Linking remote sensing and social sciences is increasingly important due to its potential to

understand processes of land-cover change over time and their relationship to socio-economic

transformations on the ground. Remote sensing techniques were performed to address

environmental implications of livelihood transformations on forest landscapes by explicitly

looking at land-use change trajectories taking place in the CMER. Satellite imagery was used to

analyze the amount and rates of forest change at the 30m pixel level in the study areas using a

hybrid classification approach developed at the Anthropological Center for Training and

Research on Global Environmental Change (ACT). Landsat 5-TM and 7-ETM+ imagery was

obtained during the dry season (June-September) for 1986, 1992, 1996, 1999, and 2003. The

remote sensing portion of the research is part of an on-going collaboration with J. Vadjunec, and

was therefore carried out on the “footprint” level for Row 02/ Path 67 and Row 03/ Path 67. The

remote sensing portion of this research informs the land-use paper. Details can be found in

chapters 4.

Structure of the Dissertation

This dissertation is presented as four separate papers (Chapters 2-5), presented in

publication style for submission to academic journals. Each paper is therefore a stand-alone

document, addressing different aspects of ERs and forest dweller issues, utilizing both unique

24

and overlapping methodologies. Preceding these articles, the current chapter (Chapter 1)

provides an introduction to the research problem and questions, an overview of the research site,

and an overview of methods of data collection. It also outlines the theoretical foundations

supporting the dissertation highlighting the debate of people-based models of conservation, in

which the ER model has featured as a principal strategy, but could be undermined by cattle

ranching, which is considered the main driver of land-use change in Amazonia, transforming

landscapes and traditional livelihoods systems. Chapter 6 presents the main conclusions of this

dissertation and explores further directions for research focused on Amazonian ERs and their

inhabitants. Collaborations, co-authorship, and target journals are explained below, followed by

a summary of each article.

The first article (Chapter 2), “Evolution of Extractive Reserves as a Conservation and

Development Strategy in the Brazilian Amazon” is the result of on-going research I started as a

TA for the class “Environment, Development and Social Movements: An Amazonian

Perspective,” taught by visiting professor Dr. Mary Allegretti at the Center for Latin American

Studies at UF. In cooperation with other professors (e.g., Marianne Schmink, Christopher

Baraloto) we established a group of researchers interested in Extractive Reserve issues, called the

“Extractive Reserve Network” (http://reservasextrativistas.blogspot.com/). I created a database

of information about ERs in Amazonia, and this chapter is a result of this effort. Drs. Marianne

Schmink, Mary Allegretti and Christopher Baraloto are co-authors. Target journals are World

Development or Development and Change.

The second article (Chapter 3), entitled “Adoption of Cattle Ranching Among Colonist

Smallholders and Forest Extractivists in the Brazilian Amazon: Historical-Cultural Contrasts and

Economic Explanations,” is also led by me with co-authorship by Dr. Stephen Perz and Dr.

25

Jacqueline Vadjunec, which resulted from my participant in projects coordinated by Dr. Perz in

Amazonia. We analyze cattle ranching by two different groups of rural groups - smallholder

colonists and forest extractivists, combining our empirical research sites in two distinct part of

Amazonia. Target journal is Economic Geography.

The third article, (Chapter 4) entitled “Land-Use / Land-Cover Change Among Rubber

Tappers in the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve, Acre, Brazil,” is the result of an on-going

collaboration on land-use land-cover research with Dr. Jacqueline Vadjunec, initiated while we

both were developing doctoral field research in Acre (Gomes et al. 2004). First a doctoral student

at Clark and then a professor in the Department of Geography at Oklahoma State University, Dr.

Vadjunec and I developed our field research together and combined efforts on field surveys,

database and land-use land-cover analyses in the CMER. We also shared ideas, collaborated with

local institutions to generate results for local needs, and committed to publish papers together as

a result of our joined dissertation efforts in the field. Dr. Vadjunec took a lead role on this paper

and I am a second author. An early version of this paper was presented as a chapter of her

dissertation (Vadjunec 2007) and a reviewed version was recently (06/08) submitted to the

Journal of Land Use Science.

The last stand-alone paper (Chapter 5), “What Makes a Rubber Tapper in Southwestern

Brazilian Amazon?: Cultural, Livelihoods and Institutional-Organizational Factors Underlying

Self-Definition,” is also a result of the collaboration (described above) with Dr. Jacqueline

Vadjunec and Dr. Stephen Perz, both of whom are co-authors to my lead authorship, due to our

shared interest in the intriguing question we have debated together about the idea of what it

means to be a rubber tapper in Amazonia today.

26

As noted, this dissertation is the result of a collective effort, with contributions from my

professors at UF and colleagues in the field from whom I have been fortunate to have the

opportunity to share ideas and collaborative possibilities that have greatly improved the quality

of this dissertation.

Evolution of Extractive Reserves as a Conservation and Development Strategy in the

Brazilian Amazon. The Brazilian Amazon contains the largest remaining contiguous forest in

the tropics, but it also faces strong development pressures and one of the highest rates of

deforestation in the world. In the nearly 20 years since the murder of rubber tapper leader Chico

Mendes and the subsequent creation of Extractive Reserves, ERs are alive as a conservation and

development strategy that strives to secure lands for forest-dependent smallholders and stem the

advance of large-scale deforestation. To date, 64 federal and state ERs have been created in the

Brazilian Amazon, spanning over 12 million ha. Despite two decades of ER implementation and

its centrality to people-based conservation, there has yet to be a region-wide analysis of this

model. In order to fill this gap, we analyze the Brazilian ER experience, showing the growth of

ERs over time by state. We emphasize the first and second waves of ER policies in the Brazilian

Amazon, documenting the land area in each state under ER protection and focusing on the

federal and state-level political and institutional dynamics that may have favored or limited the

growth of the ER model. Although ERs have an impressive lineage and remain in the spotlight of

environmental policy debates in Brazil, challenges exist to combat continued pressure at

development frontiers. This paper contributes for understanding the current condition of the ER

model and provides lessons for its future implementation in the Brazilian Amazon.

Adoption of Cattle Ranching Among Colonist Smallholders and Forest Extractivists

in the Brazilian Amazon: Historical-Cultural Contrasts and Economic Explanations. In

27

recent years, the growth of cattle ranching among small-scale agriculturalists in the Brazilian

Amazon has become a focus of policy debates about how to control deforestation. This paper

engages this debate by addressing the shift toward cattle ranching by two historically contrasting

social groups in the Brazilian Amazon: small-farm colonists and forest extractivists. We

performed a comparative socio-economic study across space and time in two Amazonian

municipalities: Uruará, in Pará state, comprised primarily of colonist farmers, and Xapuri, the

birthplace of the rubber tappers movement in the western state of Acre. These two populations

differ greatly with regard to their livelihood strategies, due in part to their geographic locations

and distinct histories and cultures. Survey data from 1996 and 2002 were analyzed for 250

colonist households in Uruará, and from 2000 and 2004 for 150 households in Xapuri. Results

reveal some similarities between colonist households and forest homesteads, including family

size and association membership, but also differences, such as longer durations of residence in

the older eastern frontier in Uruará. Although cattle ranching appear to be more predominant in

Uruará when measured in pasture area and cattle herd size, there has been a recent expansion in

cattle ranching at both sites: area of pasture increased by 20-30% in both Uruará and Xapuri over

the respective study periods. However, in Xapuri the size of cattle herds rose by 200%, whereas

in Uruará herds grew by 60%. These findings show that to promote sustainable development in

the Amazon, policy makers will need to have greater understanding of cattle ranching dynamics

among different smallholder groups, particularly ranching activity incentives for forest

extractivists.

Land-Use / Land-Cover Change Among Rubber Tappers in the Chico Mendes

Extractive Reserve, Acre, Brazil. The Extractive Reserve System is championed as a win-win

model of sustainable development in which rubber tappers serve to protect the forest, while

28

improving economic growth and resident well-being. Recently, reserves are being questioned in

terms of their environmental sustainability, as many rubber tappers increasingly turn to market

agriculture in times of economic duress and instability. This study explores land-use /land-cover

change (LUCC) in six rubber estates within the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve, using both

remote sensing analysis and household surveys, and addresses the differences in deforestation by

livelihood trajectories. A remote sensing analysis between 1986 and 2003 shows that some

communities are close to surpassing the allowable limits of deforestation. Rubber tapping plays

less an important role in livelihood strategies, as welfare is linked to non-extractive activities.

Households pursue diverse livelihood activities including extractivism, small-scale market

cultivation, animal rearing, and cattle production. The results suggest that LUCC is highly dynamic

in the reserve.

What Makes a Rubber Tapper in the Brazilian Amazon?: Cultural, Livelihoods and

Institutional-Organizational Factors Underlying Self-Definition. The Brazilian Extractive

Reserve System has been promoted as a sustainable development alternative for traditional

rubber tappers. This paper explores how land-use, socio-economic and institutional dimensions

within the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve (CMER) impact traditional rubber tappper self-

definition. We draw on household survey data to construct statistical models of who self-

identifies as a rubber tapper, and employ qualitative information from key informant interviews

to substantiate our interpretations of the models. The quantitative results reveal that larger size of

land-holding, greater knowledge of management rules, and participation in community activities

make identification as a rubber tapper more likely, while more recent occupancy in the CMER

and involvement in the official movement have a negative impact on identification as a rubber

tapper. The qualitative findings indicate that rubber tapper self-definition is a complex and ever-

29

changing idea, created over time, but strengthened at the height of the rubber tapper’s movement

in the 1980s and continuously evolving as land-use and livelihood issues continue to emerge.

Extractive Reserve and the People and Parks Debate

ERs represent one of the few models that are created not despite local people but because

of them, being premised on and legitimized by the presence of local people and their social

institutions (Ehringhaus 2005). ERs therefore lend themselves especially well to an analysis of

people-based conservation that aims to secure resource access and local livelihoods as well as

conserve natural resources. ERs have been a critical productive conservation strategy used by the

Brazilian government and a preferred approach by the social movement, particularly in

development frontier regions.

Despite its appeal and the large scale of impact of ERs, the model generated a polemic

debate among promoters (Allegretti 1989; Allegretti 1990; Allegretti 1994; Anderson 1992; Clay

1992; Daly 1990; Schwartzman 1989; Schwartzman 1992) and critics of the model (Browder

1990a; Browder 1990b; Browder 1992a; Browder 1992b; Homma 1989; Homma 1992; Homma

1993; Salafsky et al. 1993) from the moment of its conception. More recently, ERs have also

featured in the resurgence of the global debate regarding the legitimacy of indigenous and other

local populations as stewards of protected lands (Oates 1999; Pimm et al. 2001; Terborgh 1999;

Terborgh 2000; Wilkie et al. 2006), the impacts of protected areas on local communities (Adams

2004; Brockington et al. 2006; Cernea & Schmidt-Soltau 2006; Chapin 2004; Hutton et al. 2005;

Schmidt-Soltau 2004; Schmidt-Soltau & Brockington 2007) and the conservation value and

effectiveness of human-inhabited protected areas (e.g., Nepstad et al. 2006a; Schwartzman et al.

2000b; Schwartzman & Zimmerman 2005).

Within this context, ERs have been repeatedly used to illustrate points both by supporters

of people-based conservation (Campos & Nepstad 2006; Schwartzman & Zimmerman 2005;

30

Schwartzmann et al. 2000a; Schwartzmann et al. 2000b), as well as defenders of more strict

conservation areas (Redford et al. 2006; Redford & Sanderson 2000; Sanderson & Redford 2004;

Terborgh 2000). Yet, the global debate continues to be highly dichotomous, with repeated cycles

of “irresistible dialectic” (Redford & Painter 2006) pitting strict conservation on the one hand

against human wellbeing on the other.

On the one hand conservation biologists argue that people-oriented approaches to

conservation have largely failed to achieve their main goal - the protection of biological diversity

- and advocate for increased efforts towards creating large areas for strict protection of

biodiversity (e.g., Brandon 1998; Kramer et al. 1997; Oates 1999; Peres 2005; Terborgh 1999).

These authors have embraced the demystification of ecologically friendly local communities and

argue that increased population pressure, access to technology, as well as cultural and economic

changes have led to practices that are less environmentally beneficial. These arguments clash

with defendants of indigenous and local people’s land rights (e.g., Brosius 2004; Ghimire 1994;

Schmidt-Soltau & Brockington 2007; West et al. 2006; Wilshusen et al. 2002) and of the

conservation value of human inhabited areas (Colchester 2000; Nepstad et al. 2006a;

Schwartzman et al. 2000a; Schwartzman et al. 2000b). Defenders of indigenous and other

human-inhabited area argue that protectionists undervalue the political strength of grassroots

organizations to demand conservationist policies (Schwartzmann et al. 2000b) and ignore key

social aspects of social and political processes that shape how conservation interventions happen

in specific contexts (Wilshusen et al. 2002). These critics also argue that this approach neglects

not only the history of local communities but also the history of the landscape in which people

play a central role. Many authors stress the large-scale conservation value of indigenous areas,

ERs, (Goeschl & Igliori 2004; Nepstad et al. 2006a; Peres 2005; Schwartzman & Zimmerman

31

2005) and other human-inhabited areas including private lands (West & Brockington 2006),

although some of these authors tend to downplay the potential environmental impacts of rural

communities through hunting, small-scale logging and agriculture. Specifically hunting has been

the focus of the debate for the critics who are mostly concerned with effects on game, while

defenders argue that these human-inhabited protected areas are avoiding much larger problems,

such as deforestation.

The strong divide between hopeful promoters and cynical opponents of ERs erected steep

walls of dichotomies between ‘saving’ and ‘losing’ the tropics and between ‘success’ and

‘failure’ (Browder 1990b; Salafsky et al. 1993), leaving little room for the discussion of

intermediate possible outcomes and complex realities in which conservation and development

efforts are situated. Recognizing the common goals of fighting against the larger threats from

extensive agriculture, industrial forestry, plantation establishment, and broad–scale fires to both

biodiversity and marginalized forest dwellers, authors are increasingly trying to escape this

highly dichotomous debate (Redford & Painter 2006) around whether people should be included

or excluded from protected areas.

An interdisciplinary middle-field is emerging that addresses the social, political, cultural

and ecological complexities and contradictions in conservation and development efforts and

attempts to eschew extreme simplifications (Berkes 2004; Brosius 2004; Redford & Brosius

2006; Redford & Painter 2006; Redford et al. 2006; Sanderson & Redford 2004; West &

Brockington 2006). Those critical analyses of both conventional and community-based

conservation are moving towards a more differentiated understanding of social-ecological

interactions and the inevitable trade-offs between human use and biodiversity conservation and

the equitable distribution of both benefits and costs of conservation.

32

While opinions on ERs on this debate have always been strong, few publications (Brown

& Resende 2000a; Brown & Resende 2000b; Ruiz-Perez et al. 2005) have actually included on

the ground, empirical research that evaluates ERs and only one looked at ERs in a comparative

context (Nepstad et al. 2006a). Most of the protagonists of the large debates have never

conducted research in ERs and base much of their argumentation on both outdated information

and scientific hearsay, resulting in selective and skewed representation. Also, the recent debates

of ERs refer almost exclusively to pre-extractive reserve papers (Ehringhaus 2005), not taking in

account the now 20-year history of ERs and the significant changes in the process. In view of

this dearth of published information and the influence that ERs had on people-based

conservation debates, an update of the current state of the ER model is long overdue and critical

for further discussions in the broader context of the ‘people and parks debate’.

More recently, a significant body of literature representing a diversity of themes based on

empirical studies has slowly documented the transformations of the ERs, revisiting old themes

and emerging challenges surrounding forest dwellers’ economic and forest resource management

practice through the ER experience in Amazonia. Some of those aspects include transformation

of traditional livelihoods strategies in ERs, and how these changes affect traditional livelihoods

systems (Gomes 2001; Souza 2006; Wallace 2004); ecology and management of non-timber

forest products, especially brazil nut, given its socioeconomic importance for ERs areas (Cotta et

al. 2008; Kainer et al. 1998; Kainer et al. 2007; Wadt et al. 2005; Wadt et al. 2008); community-

based timber management as an emerging economic option surrounding forest extractivist

livelihoods strategies (Humphries & Kainer 2006; Rockwell et al. 2007a; Rockwell et al. 2007b;

Stone 2003); in addition to the broader context of how changes in the larger political-economic

context have affected rubber tappers in ER, the roles of grass-roots institutions in ER

33

management and governance, government incentives and political empowerment (Ehringhaus

2005; Vadjunec 2007).

Most of those studies have been carried out on the first ERs created; the ERs that played a

pivotal role in the people-based conservation debate. As so, those empirical studies are

significant not only to inform the main protagonists on the debate but also to provide a more

realistic picture of transformations and rules that ERs have played out over the 20-year as a

strategy for conservation and development of Amazonia. As ER area has increased significantly

in recent years, it encompasses a diversity of populations with a variety of forest-based

livelihood systems, a range of ecological niches and varied state political contexts. In this

context, there is a great need for further research on ER areas and to synthesize the contribution

of the diverse empirical studies carried out more recently and how they contribute to the needed

region-wide analysis of the evolving ER model. Chapter 2 of this dissertation is an effort in that

direction, as it analyzes the growth of ERs over twenty years, drawing on an analysis of the

evolution of the model and discussing the diverse contexts in which ERs have been implemented

in Amazonia. Chapter 3, 4 and 5 analyses emerging themes related to livelihoods transformations

and land-use land-cover changes within the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve as issues of

central importance for the ER debate due to their potential lack of harmony with both the

theoretical underpinnings and ecological sustainability of ER.

34

CHAPTER 2 EVOLUTION OF EXTRACTIVE RESERVES AS A CONSERVATION AND

DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY IN THE BRAZILIAN AMAZONIA

Introduction

Brazil, as owner of both the largest portion of the world's rainforests and the highest

absolute deforestation rate, is de facto a leader in both conservation and destruction of these

forests. The state of Acre in the southwestern Brazilian Amazon is the birthplace of the rubber

tapper movement, which originated in the late 1980s when a group of rubber tappers fought to

protect their land against encroaching large scale cattle ranchers. This was the first grass-roots

movement in Brazil to advocate conservation of Amazonian forests through the establishment of

Extractive Reserves (ERs). ERs are forest areas inhabited by extractive populations granted long-

term usufruct rights to resources which they manage (Allegretti 1989). Chico Mendes was the

major force behind the movement and because of his campaign against forest destruction, he was

killed by cattle ranchers in 1988. The creation of ERs as one of the first formalized systems of

people-based protected areas in the Brazilian Amazon has marked an unprecedented success of

both social movement mobilization and environmental policy-making in the Brazilian Amazon

(Allegretti 1994; Schwartzman 1989), and has been promoted as a major strategy for forest

conservation while simultaneously providing sustainable economic returns to local people.

Twenty years since the assassination of Chico Mendes and creation of the first ERs in the

region, the model has gained a solid foothold in Amazonian forest policy, while at the same time

evolving and diversifying significantly beyond the original concept. The question of what

happened after establishment of first ERs is complex and needs to be addressed in a

contemporary context. Since the creation of the first ER in1990 in the Western Amazon state of

Acre, ERs today encompass a great diversity of populations, with a variety of forest-based

livelihood systems, and living in a range of ecological niches and under varied state political

35

contexts. The model has been implemented in all Amazonian states as both federal and state

level strategies, which have been used at different points in time and undergone important

changes. More importantly, the ER model still maintains its key principal of land conflict

resolution and has become a major land tenure strategy advocated by different socio-cultural

groups in distinct Amazon ecosystems. ERs, are one of the few models created not despite local

people but because of them (Ehringhaus 2005). More than in any other conservation and

development approach, ERs are premised on and legitimized by the presence of local people and

their social institutions.

Environmental legislation in Brazil has dramatically improved over the last few decades.

The creation of ERs represented a huge change in environmental law in the Brazilian Amazon,

and environmental legislation, governance and major governmental investment in conservation

has improved substantially in the region with innovative policies observed at both federal and

state levels. While the Brazilian national government takes a broad approach for conservation

and development issues and has developed a major program for creating and supporting

conservation units, state governments have specific development and environmental agendas that

have both constrained and supported the ER model in the region. As federal and state

environmental policies are increasingly integrated in the Brazilian Amazon, it has become

important to understand how the ER model has evolved at different scales, and what role ERs

have played in a more comprehensive conservation and development policy in Amazonia.

Although considered a victory for forest dwellers, the evolving ER model has been fraught with

challenges, and political support is key to its long-term success.

In view of almost two decades of existence of ERs, an analysis of their evolution and an

update of the current state of the ER model is long overdue and critical for the further

36

discussions of the implication of current outcomes for continuing ER policy in the region. In this

article we use a political ecology approach to explore what is happening in ERs by focusing on

the evolution of the ER model through a multi-scale analysis at the federal and state levels. We

offer an analysis of ERs evolution and a discussion of the political and regional development

dynamics of each Amazonian state. We analyze how the ERs have evolved in light of social

movements and political support that have favored or constrained the establishment of ERs in

each state.

Evolution of the ERs Establishment: Contemporary Importance

Since the establishment of Brazil’s first ER on the Upper Juruá River in Acre, the western

most state of the Brazilian Amazon, the concept has spread east throughout the entire Amazon,

stretching to the mouth of the Amazon River and the Atlantic coast in Pará. The first ER, Alto

Jurúa, was created by presidential decree, imbuing it with a “special” status. The federal decree

number 98. 987 (01/30/1990) was the first legal instrument to recognize ERs in Brazil, in which

there was a co-management of the ERs by the Brazilian government and the resident

associations, regulated by a Utilization Plan. The legal instruments of ER management evolved

to the broad environmental regulatory law that now includes all conservation units in Brazil. In

2000, the National System of Protected Areas law (SNUC - law 9.985) was created, bringing

together the diverse models of protected areas at the federal, state and municipal levels. These

units were classified by two major categories: 1) the “strictly protected” model, with biodiversity

conservation as the principal objective; and 2) the “sustainable use” model, which allows for

varying forms and degrees of exploitation, and has biodiversity protection as a secondary

objective (MMA 2000; MMA 2002; Rylands & Brandon 2005; Silva 2005).1 The SNUC law

1 The “strictly protected areas” (as defined by SNUC) include national parks, biological reserves, ecological stations, natural monuments and wildlife refuges. There are 111 of these federal areas totaling 28, 245.720 ha (42% of all

37

clearly differentiates when specific protected areas should focus on preserving areas of high

biological importance or satisfy social demands, especially as development frontier expands in

the Amazon. The terms “strictly protected” or “sustainable use” are also substitutes to the terms

used before creation of the SNUC law: conservation units of indirect use (strictly protected)

versus those of direct use (sustainable use). The ERs fall under the direct use model, or as some

prefer to label them, “people-based conservation model”. The SNUC law is innovative in its

establishment of management plans and deliberative councils as the major instruments for

regulation and decision making within ERs. These mechanisms bring together a diverse set of

local and regional stakeholders, which provides a broad development perspective, but also

diminish the role of local ER communities in resident associations.

From their conception, ERs have redefined the conventional goals of conservation. Over

time, their implementation has brought local people to the forefront of conservation in protected

areas and led to a restructuring of the national and state environmental institution apparatus,

establishing the traditional peoples category as legitimate stakeholders in environmental policy

and conservation strategies. The ER model has faced strong opposition, especially during its

initial stages. The most strident critiques of ERs were produced by Browder (1990a; 1990b;

1992a; 1992b) and Homma (1989; 1993), and continue to be cited as grounds for criticism,

despite the lack of updated information. Despite criticism, for the initial strongest proponents of

the ER model, the Brazilian anthropologist Allegretti (1989; 1990; 1994; 1995) and the

American sociologist Schwartzman (1989; 1991; 1992) who publicized the rubber tapper’s

federally protected areas) “The sustainable use areas” include environmental protection areas, areas of particular ecological interest, national forests, extractive reserves, fauna reserves, sustainable development reserves, and private natural heritage reserves; there are 141 federal protected areas for sustainable use totaling 30,194.984 ha or 58% of all federally protected areas (Rylands and Brandon 2005; Silva 2005). Those numbers show a balance in terms of area protected between those two categories. But there is a major difference when they are compared across biomes of the country, especially in the Pantanal, the Cerrado and the Atlantic Forest. Only in Amazonia is there an approximate balance between strict (49%) protection and sustainable use (51%) (Rylands and Brandon 2005).

38

cause, ERs continue to represent a very vibrant example of a innovative policy that balances

conservation and development among traditional communities (Allegretti 2002; Schwartzman &

Zimmerman 2005).

ERs were first thought of as a federal model of agrarian reform while promoting

conservation. But soon after the first federal ERs were created, a state-level approach was

created following the same principles as the federal model. The principal difference in the

approach concerned the institutional arrangements for establishment and monitoring of ERs.

While the federal ERs are created by presidential degree and the Ministry of the Environment

plays a major role in their administration, State ERs are created by state governments with

approval of the State House of Representatives. Both approaches, however, depend on the

mobilization of social movements and their capacity to negotiate at both state and federal

political arenas. In both cases, local political will is necessary to stabilize the ER.

In the Brazil Amazon, the ER model has paved the way for the creation of other people-

based protected areas, as well as hybrid land tenure models (Ehringhaus 2005), that are being

implemented by various institutions at both the federal and state level, and respond to changing

political contexts and opportunities. These sustainable-use protected areas include marine ERs

(in Amazonia and along the Atlantic coast of Brazil), Extractive Settlement Projects (PAE)

which are forest-based, land reform areas that preceded ERs, Sustainable Development Reserves

(RDS), Sustainable Settlement Projects (PDS) and more recently Forest Settlement Projects

(PAF). Although the ER model associated with the Brazilian Institute of Environmental

Protection (IBAMA) the implementation arm of the Ministry of the Environment (MMA), is still

the most well-known type of sustainable use areas, today many state and federal institutions,

including the National Agrarian Reform Institute (INCRA) of the Brazilian Ministry of Agrarian

39

Development (MDA), are involved in the architecture of institutional arrangements in defining

and creating new sustainable use areas. In 2007, the MMA created the “Chico Mendes Institute”

a government branch responsible for creating and managing all conservation units in Brazil,

which seems to be a clear demonstration of the role ERs have played in influencing conservation

policy in Amazonia, and demonstrates the political empowerment of grassroots social

movements in the region. Despite the institute’s naming after a rubber tapper martyr, the

transformation of the ER model to a governmental institution can also be seen as a confused mix

of government and social movement partnership configurations.

Furthermore, the ER model has been expanded and been applied to a diverse range of

ecological and social contexts. It has moved beyond forest environments to riverine floodplains

and marine ecosystems and now encompasses diverse social groups with distinct historical

backgrounds. For instance, while originally only rubber tappers were entitled to ERs, today the

concept has been applied to other extractivist rural workers in Amazonia. Given the increasing

number of ERs of different types, there is a great diversity in size, population density and

background, ecological and cultural context, livelihood strategies, social organization, market

access and development pressure among the different ER sites.

Aside from proposing the ER model, the rubber tapper movement has evolved from being

a movement of powerless workers to a powerhouse influencing both environmental policy and

land reform with its activists operating in and contributing to local, regional and national

governments, legitimizing its philosophy of social justice. Rubber tapper institutions are

represented in Amazonian states and have helped to establish a broad network of rural worker’s

organizations, including the powerful Grupo de Trabalho Amazonico (Amazon Working Group),

40

created in 1992 with twenty grassroots organizations. Today, this group has over five hundred

small organization members based on eighteen branches in Amazonia.

The rubber tapper movement’s success has come as a result of its efforts to pioneer

strategies to open new political spaces, create long-lasting partnerships with other social groups,

to establish the successful and dynamic concept of ER, and develop the capacity and flexibility

to adapt to diverse social and political contexts in Amazonia. In 2005, the rubber tapper

movement celebrated twenty years, with the Congress of Extractivist Peoples of Amazonia. With

the participation of over three hundred extractivists and representatives of a variety of

institutions, the three-day meeting hold in Manaus focused on intense discussion about the

experience and the future of ERs and other related protected model areas in Amazonia.

Addressing old and new themes, the meeting addressed five central topics: (i) land tenure issues,

(ii) production, credit and technical assistance, (iii) social organization and management, (iv)

management plans, and (v) payment for environmental services. The discussion surrounding

those themes demonstrates that in those twenty years, new and old challenges are intertwined

within an agenda of a social movement still yearning for success, despite its accomplishment in

those two decades.

Analytical Framework: A Political Ecology Multi-Scale Analysis

Advances and challenges to the ERs in Brazil have been the product of complex forces

interacting over time at diverse levels. This complexity calls for a political ecology framework of

analysis that considers the wide interactions of actors with each other and the environment

(Bryant & Bailey 1997: 191). Political ecology acknowledges the human production of nature

and political forces behind such production.

We present a multi-scale analysis of the ER model, focusing first on social movements that

support them, as well as federal and state policies, international pressures, and how actors at

41

different levels interact in the creation of ERs. We take into account the changing dynamics of

politics, policy, and social movement strength in explaining the different forms ERs have taking

in different states at different moments in recent history.

Previous studies have shown the fundamental importance of social movements in creating

the original ERs, as well as in proposals for other innovative social-environmental policies in

Brazilian Amazonia (Allegretti 2002; Allegretti & Schmink forthcoming; Becker et al. 1990;

Hall 1997). Our analysis therefore examines to what extent the implementation of ERs has been

associated with strong social movements in different states at different periods.

Favorable political support at federal, state, and local levels, as they interact with

international political pressures, also plays an important role in determining policy outcomes. We

therefore play close attention to power relations and to the role of the state, over time, in

promoting development initiatives that may directly or indirectly lead to success or failure of ER

policy.

Many of the outcomes of Amazon development policy can be understood as the outcome

of social conflicts and disputes over development models and practices (Schmink & Wood

1992). ERs were created because of people and have been implemented in a very politicized

environment that often involved disputes and power relations among distinct political forces and

social actors. The study therefore focuses on ERs as part of emerging negotiations among

different interests regarding the future of Amazonian territories.

We explore the evolution of three key themes related to the political ecology of ERs in

Brazil – social movement strength; political will at diverse levels, and emerging forms of

negotiation – as they help to explain the evolution of ER policies in different Amazonian states

over the past two decades. The findings suggest that ER policies have contributed not only to the

42

land tenure security of forest peoples in Amazonia, but also to the emergence of new forms of

dialogue over Amazonian policy.

Data and Methods

We elaborated a database of ERs created in Amazonia from 1990 to 2007. Information for

the database was collected through a variety of sources: requests for information from the

Brazilian Environmental Institute (IBAMA) and state environmental agencies, attendance at

local meetings and workshops, and review of the literature, news reports and data found on the

internet. In addition, interviews with key informants were conducted, including government

officials and social movement leaders. The database is composed of a series of information about

ERs: year of creation, status/state or federal, size, location, population, main economic activities

among others. Geo-referenced information (shape files) was also collected through online

database of the IBAMA and database from the Institute for Amazonian Research (IPAM).

We analyze the evolution of ERs temporally, in addition to spatially across all states in the

Brazilian Amazon. We first provide an overall cross state analysis of growth and distribution of

ER. Then, we further disaggregate the data through examining time of ER creation focusing our

analysis on temporal progression of ER implementation. We discuss the evolution of ER over

three time periods: 1) First wave of ERs (1990-1995); 2) Transition period (1996-2000); and 3)

Second wave of ERs (2001-2007).

Results

Cross State Analysis: Federal and State Extractive Reserves

The Brazilian legal Amazon, a concept created for economic development planning in the

region, includes all states in northern Brazil, as well as the state of Mato Grosso and a portion of

Maranhão. This corresponds to approximately 5 million km2, which constitute 60% of the total

Brazilian territory. As of January 2008, there were 39 federal Extractive Reserves in Amazonia

43

covering an area of almost 10 million ha and 25 state reserves covering approximately 2.4

million ha. This is a total of 64 ERs that encompass an area of more than 12 million ha in eight

states of the Brazilian Amazon, as observed in Table 2-1. This figure, which shows the

distribution of ERs by state, reveals the following: Acre has 5 federal ERs, Amapá has 1 federal

ER, Rondônia has 22 state and 4 federal ERs, Maranhão has 4 federal ERs, Tocantins has 1

federal ER, Mato Grosso has 1 state ER, Pará has 17 federal ERs, and Amazonas has 2 state and

7 federal ERs. This figure shows a varying approach of ER establishment in the region, as

observed through the creation of 22 state level ERs in Rondônia and 2 in Amazonas, as well as

the creation of Marine ERs on the Atlantic coast of Pará and Maranhão states.

Moreover, this figure shows the absolute area under ERs in each state and what this

represents in percentage of state territory. It reveals that the state of Pará with approximately 3.8

million of ha under federal ERs, has the highest absolute amount of land under ERs, followed by

Acre with 2.7 million of ha of federal ERs. The states of Amazonas and Rondônia, which

initiated the creation of ERs at the state level, appear with similar figures in terms of land

protected under ERs, with 2.5 million and 2.4 million ha respectively. Nonetheless, Rondônia

has the greatest amount of area under state level ER protection (over 1.9 million ha), while in

Amazonas the vast majority of ER lands are federal (over 2.1 million ha). This figure changes

when comparing which states have the highest percentage of their territory under ERs. The state

of Acre, the birthplace of the ER model, appears with 17.7% of its territory in ERs, the largest

percentage of all Amazon states, followed by the state of Rondônia with 10.1%, and Amapá with

3.4%. Those are all relatively small states in the Brazilian Amazon and where the ER model was

first implemented, starting in 1990. Pará and Amazonas, with 3% and 1.6% respectively, on the

other hand, are the two largest Amazonian states and only in the later 1990’s did the ER model

44

expand to those states. These features do not allow for further discussion of the evolution and

recent trends of ERs establishment in the region and thus require further disaggregation of the

data through examining time of ER creation.

Table 2-1. Number and area of federal and state ERs in the Brazilian Amazon Amazonia States Level Number State area (%) Area (ha) Acre Federal 5 17.73 2,704,353Amapá Federal 1 3.37 481,650Rondônia State 22 8.25 1,959,473 Federal 4 1.87 444,011Maranhão Federal 3 0.09 29,628 Marine 1 0.56 185,186Tocantins Federal 1 0.03 9,280Mato Grosso State 1 0.05 49,029Pará Federal 7 2.64 3,288,229 Marine 10 0.36 443,451Amazonas State 2 0.23 367,339 Federal 7 1.38 2,163,529Sub-total State 25 - 2,375,841 Federal 39 - 9,749,317 Marine 11 - 628,637 Forest 53 - 11,496,521Total 64 - 12,125,158

The Evolution of Extractive Reserves Policy: Three Stages

In this section, we focus on the temporal progression of ERs implementation throughout

the Brazilian Amazon. Figure 2-1 shows the ages of federal and state ERs, and Figure 2-2 gives a

temporal and spatial distribution of ERs across states over three times periods. The first wave of

ERs (1990-95) is viewed as an innovative, bottom-up policy process that, despite the debate

stemming from this conservation and development strategy, the potential of the ER model did

not reach a large scale. The first wave period represented an initial push in 1990 and led to the

creation of four federal ERs in three different states; two in Acre (the Upper Juruá River and

Chico Mendes), one in Amapá (Rio Cajari) and one in Rondônia (Rio Ouro Preto), which cover

approximately 2.2 million ha. After this first push, the total area of land under federal ERs

45

changed very little, despite the creation of four new federal ERs in two states in 1992. In the state

of Maranhão, three small ERs were created, covering a total of approximately 30.000 ha, while

in the state of Tocantins an ER of approximately 10.000 ha was created. The biggest change

during those five years came with the adoption of the model to create the first state level ER in

Rondônia, which in 1995 alone, created 22 state ERs covering approximately two million ha.

Therefore, the first five years of ER experience were characterized by an initial push of

establishment of four ERs in three different states, and an adaptation of the federal model,

represented by the creation of state level ERs in Rondônia.

Figure 2-1. Number and age of federal and state extractive reserves in Amazonia: abbreviations of the names of Amazonian states are as follows: Acre-AC, Amapá-AP, Rondônia-RO, Maranhão-MA, Tocantins-TO, Mato Grosso-MT, Pará-PA, and Amazonas-AM. The F or S following the abbreviations stands for federal or state-level ERs.

46

Figure 2-2. Spatial distribution and age of federal and state extractive reserves in Amazonia

During the transition period (1996-2000), an additional four federal ERs were created,

covering an area of over 1.2 million ha. This period of ERs is characterized by the application of

ER systems in the two biggest states in Amazonia where no previous ERs had been before. In

1997, the state of Amazonas created its first ER, Médio Juruá with an area of over 250 thousands

ha. Then, in 1998, the 674,000 ha Tapajós-Arapiuns ER was created in the state of Pará. Another

characteristic of this period was that in 2000, completing ten years of ER experience in

Amazonia, the federal model was applied again in the first time in two of the states where it was

first established, when the Alto Tarauacá ER with approximately 180,000 ha was created in Acre

47

and the Lago Cuniã ER with over 50,000 ha in Rondônia. This period is considered a transition,

because there was little change in ER area in the first wave states, but the model began to be

applied on the two largest states in the region, making a huge contribution to the expansion of the

ER model during the following period. In the transition period, the social movements created an

agenda for the broad application of ERs in the region. This was a period in which the concept

spread and generated discussion among actors on multiple scales, from traditional communities

to political decision-makers.

The second wave of ERs (2000-07) represented a huge increase in ER areas with the

establishment of 29 ERs covering approximately 6.9 million ha of land. This represented an

increase of over 50% land under ERs system on the previous two periods. During this period,

only in 2007 were neither Federal nor State ERs implemented in the region, while in all other

years there was significant establishment. 2003 represents the year in which the least amount of

land (216,874 ha) was designated as ERs, with the implementation of only one state level ER in

the state of Amazonas, and 2004 shows the highest amount with over 2.5 million ha of land

designed as ERs. This represented an increase of over 1.1 million ha of land designed as ERs

every year during this period. It can be observed that the state of Pará alone provided an

important contribution to this large increase: 16 federal ERs were created covering an area of

approximately 3.1 million ha. This included the creation of 10 Marine ERs in mangroves of

approximately half million ha. Nine of Pará’s ERs were created between 2005-07, representing

more than half its total ERs thus far.

Following the trends of Pará state is the state of Amazonas, although with less extension.

During the second wave period, there were six federal ERs created, covering an area over 1.9

million ha. In addition, Amazonas state took a state level approach, as formerly observed in

48

Rondônia and created two state level ERs, covering an area of 368,000 ha. This increase in ER

land during that period was also a result of two new ERs established in Acre, Cazumbá-Iracema

and the Riozinho da Liberdade, which were created respectively 2002 and 2005. This increased

the state area under federal ER by over one million ha. Small changes were also observed in the

state of Rondônia with the establishment of two small federal ERs in 2001, covering an area of

183,578 ha. Despite of almost two decades of ER experience in Amazonia, the average ER is

only four years old, demonstrating that the concept has just recently taken off.

During this final period, we observe a widespread application of the ER model in the states

of Pará and Amazonas, where the model did not originate, but incorporated the policy during the

transition phase. It is also observed that ER concept gained differentiation in its application as

seen through the creation of marine ERs in Pará. The approach of ER implementation was

increasingly top-down despite continued engagement of the social movement in the process. This

is likely a result of the popularization of ERs model at multiple scales, from regional grassroots

organizations to governmental acceptance of the ER model as a productive conservation and

development strategy for the region.

Current Trends: the First Wave States vs the Second Wave

Figure 2-3 shows that in seventeen years of ERs policy in the first wave states a total of

5,862,610 ha have been designated under ER, while the second wave states with one decade of

ER policy history have reached a total of 6,262,549 ha of land under the ER system. While the

concept is very much alive in the first wave states, such as Acre, the biggest expansion of the

model took place in the second wave states, especially in the last six years. In terms of

percentage of land under ER, the first wave states show a greater percentage than the second

wave states. When it comes to absolute number of area under ERs, the second wave states have a

greater number than the first wave states. This information gives us insight into future trends for

49

ER growth. It is unlikely that ERs will continue to grow in number in the first wave states, such

as in Acre where almost 20% of its territory is under ER area. Time (almost two decades) and the

political context in Rondônia give no indication of a continuing establishment of ERs in this

state. The ER model in the small, first wave states could be exhausted, while in the second wave

states, the model will continue to be considered. Despite the impressive advantage of absolute

land area, the second wave states have recently created, especially in Pará, it is far below what

the state of Acre has already done in dedicating a larger percentage of its territory under the ER

system.

This discussion of ERs does not intend to infer about which state in the region has made a

greater contribution to the system of conservation units in the Brazilian Amazon, but instead to

compare where and when ERs have been demanded. For the former debate, a much broader

perspective on all models of conservation units under the SNUC law would need to be taken

under consideration. The ER system is a pioneer model under the “direct-use protected areas,”

however there has also been an advancement of “strict protected areas” in the region (Silva 2005,

Rylands and Brandon 2005, Ribeiro et al 2005, and Borges et al 2007). However, under the

“direct-use protected areas” the ER system as a pioneer has paved the way for the creation of

other direct use conservation unites. In this context, if ER is not exactly the choice model of

direct conservation units in some states, it provided the foundation for the creation of several

other conservation unit models in the region. This is an important advantage of the ER system,

but can also represent a loss for what ERs predict for sustainable use of forest resources. The

state of Amazonas, for example, has made an important contribution in the expansion of the

Sustainable Development Reserve (SDR), which was created under the foundation of the ER

system, with a focus on state level initiatives. Since 2003 the state of Amazonas has created

50

seven SDRs covering an area of approximately 4.7 million ha of forest. This represents an area

86% bigger than all the federal and state level ERs in the state, although the ER system has a

longer history in the state. This is a clear demonstration that the ER model is not the only option

available, and that there is a competition of “direct-use protected areas” occurring and that state

governments in the region are also making political choices for designation of a specific model.

Figure 2-3. Evolution of land under ER in the first and second wave states of ER system

Regional Development Dynamics’ Favoring or Constraining ER

The ER model was initially implemented in the first wave states due to land use conflicts

provoked by sponsored government programs. While in Acre, the state government promoted the

occupation of former rubber tapper estates to migrant cattle ranchers from southern Brazil,

Rondônia was under alarming deforestation rates and land conflict with indigenous peoples and

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

year

are

a (

mi h

a)

First wave of ERs Second wave of ERs Accumulated

Transition

Second wave First wave

1990 1995 2000 2007

51

rubber tapper population due to the paving of the BR-364 highway funded by the World Bank.

Meanwhile, on the opposite side of the Brazilian Amazon, Brazil nut collectors in Amapá were

being threated by “project Jari,” a major cellulose production project in the southern portion of

the state where the greater majority of rural households as well as the greater expanses of Brazil

nut groves were located – the major forest extractivist product in the state. Of the three first wave

states of ER establishment, Acre has shown the strongest commitment to the ER policy. While

the ER policy has evolved over the past 15 years, in Rondônia it shows there was only a brief

period of ER establishment, as well as in Amapá, where the establishment of ERs did not evolve

at all.

The political success of the rubber tapper movement in creating the concept of ERs

transformed politics in the state of Acre. Jorge Viana, a forester and one-time close adviser to

Chico Mendes, was elected governor in 1998 and reelected in 2002. In the last decade, Acre

government launched innovative policies to strengthen the extractivist economy within the state

(Kainer et al. 2003). Support of ERs are a major component of goverment approach, and thus

from 2000 to 2006, a new cycle of establishment of ERs blossomed as three new federal ERs

were created. Acre’s forest government highlighted the social component of local and regional

development, as evidenced in the government’s innovative forest conservation and development

paradigm – “Florestania” or forest citizenship, built around a recognition and appreciation for

local knowledge systems. Acre policies greatly increased representation of forest peoples in

regional politics, involved rubber tappers and other extractivists populations more directly in the

administration of forest resources and development initiatives, and integrated rubber tapper

culture into regional society, creating a spirit of participation, collaboration and social awareness

of what is becoming a shining example of governance sparked by the movement initiated by

52

Chico Mendes. It is fair to say that Acre exemplifies the most vivid scenario of the ERs model in

the Amazon. It is unlikely that the focus of the new policies will be in creating new ERs areas,

but rather to improve livelihood conditions of the extractivist population living in established

areas.

Rondônia took steps of not only becoming the first state to adopt the state-level ER

approach, but also designated a relatively larger area for this first initiative. In Rondônia, this

initial government policy apparently demonstrates that the Rondônian state government of the

mid-1990s was committed to the development goals of ERs. One must ask what factors in

political development brought about this remarkable course of action, since then there has been

no indication of continuity in the process of the establishment of reserves.

These state ERs were created in the context of the Planafloro Program (1993-2002) which

was funded by the World Bank as a response to previous major investments by the Bank that had

major environmental and social impacts in the region2. The major goal of the program was to

protect biodiversity through a zoning program and create a diverse system of conservation units:

the state ERs were one of the models proposed by the social movement.

The option for state-level reserves was also a source of debate; even though the areas

designed for the state reserves were federal land, the decision to state-level approach was due

Federal ER would take longer to be implemented and grassroots organization could lose the

political momentum of social movement pressure supported by external donors on the state

government for the legal designation of those areas. By adopting an innovative state-level model,

the local social movement guaranteed that at least the rubber tapper communities would acquire

2 In the late 1980's, the Bank's POLONOROESTE road construction (highway BR 364) project that opened the western Brazilian Amazon to slash-and-burn agriculture, logging, and cattle ranching gained international attention due to the environmental and social damage it provoked in the region and is widely considered today one of the worst ecological disasters ever supported by the Bank.

53

immediate rights to the land. As Ademir de Melo Uchoa, a leader of the Organization of the

Rubber Tapper of Rondônia, stated in a personnal interview, “if we had not created those state

reserves, today all this area would already be pasture land and our families would be leaving in

slums in urban areas”.

Despite an active social movement resistance, there is a lack of local government’s

commitment with ER policy, leaving little room on the local political development agenda for

the rubber tappers demands, which are often seen by local economic elite and government as

antagonist to the state-wide development goals. This, in turn, has resulted in a political and

institutional fragility that have made them difficult to consolidate over the long term. ERs in

Rondônia have likely had to face the greatest pressures of all the ERs in the Amazon. Rubber

tapper leaders are still living in an atmosphere of sustained rural conflicts, constantly harassed by

local opposition pushing for other land uses, resulting in constant illegal practices (specially

logging), and deforestation in the state’s ERs (Euler et al. 2008; Ribeiro et al. 2005). Rondônia’s

experience with creating and managing state ERs is a valuable lesson for federal and state policy

makers. Local political dynamics show that state level’ ERs are more vulnerable in terms of

applying and consolidating the concept of the ERs as sustainable environmental policy.

The rural workers union of Amapá led an important social movement against the “Jari

Project” a major cellulose production project in the southern part of the state, which resulted

creation of the Extractivist Settlement Projects in 1988, and then creating the Cajari ER in 1990.

The creation of the Rio Cajari reserve was strongly supported by pressure of the social

movement in the region, especially the Brazil nut collectors.

Amapá is one of the smallest states in the region, located on the Amazon estuary and the

forest product economy is more centered in the southern part of the states. Because of its social

54

and ecological characteristics, Amapá’s southern region became the center of the direct-use

conservation units in the state. Three protected areas dominate the state’s extractivist production

are located in the south. The central region is the Cajari ER, the 860,000-ha Iratapurú River State

Sustainable Development Reserve (RDS), established in 1996, on the northern border of the

Cajari ER. The 600- ha Extractivist Settlement Project of Maracá was created in 1988, on what

was to become the Cajari ER’s southern border.

Moreover, Amapá is not located within “frontier expansion areas”, which in turn, may

have led to reduced social movement pressure and land tenure conflicts over resources.

Nevertheless, it seems that the social movement in the region has received political support for

establishment extractivist development initiative, although not advocating for creation of new

ERs over the last decades.

According to Pedro Ramos (65), an important extractivist leader, “when João Alberto

Capiberibe was elected governor of Amapá (1994/1998/2002), the concept of sustainable

development came to governmental agenda, and the government launched the Sustainable

Development Program of Amapá (PDSA), creating Sustainable Development Reserves (SDRs)

rather than ERs.” Today with the new government (Valdez Goes, 2006) there is increasing

endorsement of a broader policy that indicates continued support for extractivist development,

which led to greater support for extractive communities living in ERs and other models of direct-

use conservation units. Recently, the state government launched a planning strategy called the

“Biodiversity Corridor,” which advances an integrated management policy for conservation

units, respecting the goals of each model and promoting the creation of protected areas, in which

new ERs are planned. The unchangeable scenery of ERs establishment in Amapá since the

creating of the Rio Cajari in 1990, does not illustrate the picture of scenarios of extractive

55

development in Amapá; it merely shows that the ER model has not grown in terms of number.

Amapá shows an interesting scenery of extractivist development initiatives, one in which the

ERs has not being applied, but has borrowed its central principals.

The evolution of ERs in the second wave states in the late 1990s is a reflection of

improvement of environmental policy in Amazonia. Although the ERs are in their preliminary

stages in Pará, they are likely to be a result of a strong social movement mobilizing in the region.

This social movement, which stated in early 1980s (Campos & Nepstad 2006), has only recently

found the right arena to propose its ideas for forest conservation and rural development based on

sustainable agriculture and extractivist livelihood systems.

Local extractivist communities and colonist small farmers suffering from an absence of

state assistance developed an important resistance with support of the Catholic Church and Rural

Workers Unions creating the “Movimento Pelo Desenvolvimento da Transamazônica e

Xingu”(MDTX); a coalition of grassroots organizations of sustainable development groups,

involving grassroots organizations of rural worker unions, colonist organizations and

organizations of forest dwellers. This movement has a broad green agenda that includes

demands for technical assistance, credits, market access, infrastructure improvement, and basic

social services (FVPP 2000). The agenda clamored for a development plan that reconciles forest

conservation with rural development in the eixo North and South of the Transamazônica

highway. In the northern part, the ER Verde Para Sempre (Forever Green), the largest ER in

Amazonia today, was created, while in the southern part the “Terra do Meio” conservation

mosaic was created, which includes other small ERs (eg., ER of Iriri) and other restricted use

conservation units (Nepstad et al. 2006a).

56

The MDTX constructed a common agenda among different groups and stgrengthened its

local and regional alliances in order to demand concrete changes in government policies in the

region. The Fundação Viver, Produzir and Preservar-FVPP (Foundation for Living, Producing

and Preserving) connected over fifty grassroots organizations and became the operational arm of

the movement, in addition to bringing financial support and technical assistance for the groups.

Its strongest period in building bridges to consolidate its voice took place through the

“mobilization” for the paving of the Cuiabá-Santarém Highway (BR-163), a road connecting soy

bean producers from the state of Mato Grosso to the port of Santarém. Its increased social

network resulted in bigger role and pressure for the federal government to develop effective

territorial planning actions to mitigate deforestation in the region. The MDTX network and

articulation process in addition to the join support of environmental NGOs were fundamental to

the proposal of creating a conservation unit mosaic in the region, which came together with the

governmental initiatives to mitigate deforestation and solve drastic land tenure conflict in the

Terra do Meio region. This resulted in a socio-environmental zoning program for the region,

bringing together diverse stakeholders and institutions in an innovative forum of debates on

development and forest conservation, and environmental governance in the region (IPAM 2004;

ISA 2004). Establishment of federal forest ERs in Pará represents a complex context of

negotiation in Amazonia, one which has alleviated long standing land tenure problems and

agrarian conflicts3. It also represent a important example of increased environmental governance

through dialogue and negotiation between different development interests, continuing coalition

3 Tarcísio Feitosa da Silva (35) - a key leader of the MDTX who was awarded one of six 2006 Goldman Environmental Prices for his work on defending local communities against land grabs, illegal illegal logging and human rights - was emphatic when asked “what were the advantages today of the creation of those ERs in the region:I am going to answer your question in a very simple way and will use a phase from “senhor Manelito” when he found out that the ER of the Iriri was created in June/06: “now I can sleep with tranquility in the ER of Iriri. I never expected that the government would give this area for me and my family. Now we have to continue work here to solve our problems related to economy, education and health. We need also to continue to guarantee our organization here….the threats are gone.”

57

of social movements, and the increased presence of federal government institutions in frontier

areas.

Continued Demands and New Frontiers for ERs

The demand for ERs by local populations and their supporters has increased significantly,

demonstrating the “popularization” of ERs and the acceptance of this model as an important

conservation and land tenure strategy used by forest peoples to gain rights to land and resources.

Nevertheless, the process for establishment of federal ER is complex and can take years.4 As of

January 2008, there were five federal ER processes concluded and waiting for federal decree to

be officially created in Amazonia, all of them in the second wave state of ER systems. In the

state of Pará, the Montanha-Mangabal ER in the municipality of Itaituba, in the region of the

upper Tapajós river; and the Médio Xingu ER, in the municipality of Altamira, in the basin of

the Xingu river will be created. In the state of Amazonas the Médio Purus ER and the Ituxi ER

will be created, in the municipalities of Lábrea and Pauini respectively; as will the Baixo Rio

Branco-Jauaperi ER in the border of the state of Amazonas with Roraima in the municipalities

of Rorainopolis and Novo Airão. This is an indication that the ER system will soon have

important increment in land in those second wave states. In addition, there are several other on-

going processes for creation of ER in both first and second wave states as following: Acre (4),

Amapá (3), Rondônia (3), Tocantins (13), Amazonas (9), and Pará (15). This suggest that in the

next coming years ER will continue to growth, as it is expected to be created 23 ER in the first

wave state and 29 in the second wave states.

4 It starts with an official request of population organization for the government. Then, a land tenure inventory, followed by a socio-economic survey of the region coordinated by the government. Then, a public consult is carried out at the municipalities where the ER will be created. The final process depends on the federal decree signed by the Brazilian President.

58

Moreover, the ER system has started to be implemented in the cerrado, or savanna, biome

in central Brazil. This is an important move forward that will likely represent a new frontier for

ER expansion in the future. In central Brazil, the ER model is being claimed by the cerrado

extractivists’ groups that face similar problems to the Amazonian groups, which are related to

land conflicts and maintenance of an extractivist economy due to the expansion of agricultural

frontier in the region. The cerrado is the second biggest biome in Brazil with an area of

approximately 2 million km² and is one of the most threatened in the country as it is Brazil’s

principal area for agricultural expansion. It is a biome that encompasses eleven states in the

country, including vast areas of what is considered the legal Amazon, particularly in the state of

Mato Grosso, Tocantins and Maranhão. The cerrado had recently become an immense

agricultural frontier, which in some aspects has substituted Amazonia as open space for

economic expansion. Contrary to Amazonia, where resource preservation has become an

international concern, the cerrado has been overlooked as an important biome. In this manner

both the cerrado and the Amazon were seen as empty economic space to be explored, with the

cerrado offering the advantage that its openness has led to faster economic occupation. From an

internal and external political point of view, the environmental issues in the cerrado ecosystems

have not appeared polemic, whereas in the Amazon imperative environmental concern is at the

forefront.

In 2006, the first two ERs created in the cerrado biome, the Recanto das Araras da Terra

Ronca with 11.964 ha and Lago do Cedro with 17,337, both located at the state of Goiás. In

2007, the Chapada Limpa ER with 11,971 ha was created in the state of Maranhão, the first ER

on cerrado ecossytem in the state. The adaptation of ER in the cerrado has been thought to be a

59

strategy for extractivist groups and a barrier to the expansion of the agricultural frontier in

specific parts of the region.

The Brazilian Environmental Agency has received eighteen requests from extractivist

groups for continued establishment of new ER are in the cerrado region. The creation of ERs in

central Brazil, incite a debate in the cerrado that was initiated twenty years ago in Amazonia, but

has only recently gained political power as observed with the creation of many ERs in Amazonia

in the last few years. Whether or not ERs will take off as an instrument for conservation in

central Brazil is still in doubt, but its implementation, at least in the short run, will have an

immediate impact on halting more destructive land use practices, in addition to preserving

traditional extractvist land use practices that have been lost to large-scale agricultural activities.

With the implementation of the first ERs in the cerrado, it is also expected that government and

other social groups will learn and unmask much of what is still little known about the traditional

extractivist economy in the Central region of Brazil.

Conclusions

What have ERs contributed to conservation and development in Amazonia in the past two

decades? And what will the coming decades hold for the Extractive Reserve system? In the first

wave states, despite stagnation in Rondônia, both Rondônia and Acre have placed a significant

percentage of their territory under ERs. Rondônia’s state reserves may be the most paradigmatic

in their application of the model after twelve years; a typical case of struggle between the

economic development and environmental protection camps, in which the winner is usually

determined by the group that has more political weight. In sum, the status of ERs in Acre appears

to be solid, in terms of territory and political support while in Rondônia, it is stagnated in growth

and there is a profound lack of government support for ERs. Another first wave state, Amapá,

60

appears stagnated in terms of numbers, despite the fact that “extractivism development” and

“environmental protection concerns” have a presence in the state governmental agenda.

The situation in the second wave states looks promising if recent advances continue in

coming years; it is very likely they will. Pará and Amazonas are far from reaching some of the

first wave states in percentage of land under ERs, but have demonstrated a consistent process of

establishing ERs since the early 2000s, representing the trend for continuing growth of ERs

areas.

ERs as a public policy is widely considered one of the options to simultaneously decrease

deforestation rates in the region while responding to social group demands, especially in frontier

areas. Most of the states in the Brazilian Amazon have adopted this policy, especially in recent

years. The creation of ERs should not be seen as static or synonymous of forest protection,

rather, it is protection for a much longer time. Taking into consideration that most ERs are

created in frontier regions, three elements should be essential to all ER efforts: 1) the

improvement of living conditions for the extractive population; 2) a strong monitoring process;

and 3) an active and continuous social movement in the area. The biggest challenges might be

not overcome with the establishment of an ER, but occur in the years following its creation. In

many cases, the creation of an ER means the immediate resolution to land conflict. However, ER

residents cannot be left alone with little or no governmental policies/support in place to help

them improve their economic and social well-being, as have been the case in several of the first

ER implemented in the region. This is especially likely if the social movement views the creation

of an ER as an end of an end in itself.

Federal ERs appear to be less vulnerable to state political interferences, while the state-

level approach seems to depend on closer alignment with the goals of state government’s

61

development agenda. The general focus of both social movement institutions and government

has been to create new ERs areas, and pay less attention to elaborating public policies for socio-

economic growth within ERs. This perspective need to be reviewed in order to guarantee

sustainable future for already established ERs in Amazonia.

62

CHAPTER 3 ADOPTION OF CATTLE RANCHING AMONG COLONIST SMALLHOLDERS AND

FOREST EXTRACTIVISTS IN THE BRAZILIAN AMAZON: HISTORICAL-CULTURAL CONTRASTS AND ECONOMIC EXPLANATIONS

Introduction

The recent explosion of research on the environmental and economic costs and benefits of

land use and land cover change in the Amazon has often featured the central role of cattle

ranching activities (e.g., Barreto et al. 2005; Faminow 1998; Nepstad et al. 2006b; Smeraldi &

May 2008; Veiga et al. 2004; Wood & Porro 2002). Pastures cover the large majority of

deforested land in agricultural use in the Brazilian Amazon (Arima et al. 2006; IBGE 1998), and

substantial areas that appear to be secondary vegetation when viewed in satellite images are

actually “dirty” or degraded pastures (e.g., Perz & Walker 2002). While debate over cattle

ranching in the Amazon has often centered on the large properties that contain a considerable

share of the pastures in the region, observers increasingly recognize that social actors aside from

capitalized interests are buying cattle and converting other land uses to pasture (e.g., Barreto et

al. 2005; Mertens et al. 2002; Tourrand & Veiga 2003; Walker et al. 2000). This shift toward

cattle, a process called pecuarização or “cattle-ization,” raises questions about why livelihood

strategies among heretofore distinct social actors would converge in a highly heterogeneous

socio-economic region such as the Amazon.

Two historically contrasting social groups who are increasingly engaged in cattle

ranching are small-scale colonists and forest extractivists. Initially upon arrival in frontier areas

of the Amazon, colonists focused on producing food crops and engaged in ranching mainly for

subsistence purposes (Fearnside 1986; Moran 1981). For different reasons, forest extractivists

such as rubber tappers also had little history of raising cattle (e.g., Dean 1987; Weinstein 1983).

But by the 1990s, the livelihood systems and land use profiles of both groups were changing.

63

Cattle ownership among small-farm colonists in the Amazon grew faster than herds on large

properties (e.g., Perz 2002). And rubber tappers, who in the 1970s and 1980s constituted a

grassroots social movement to forestall deforestation and the expansion of ranching, were

adopting cattle and forming pastures (e.g., Gomes 2001; Gomes 2005). This parallel trend

toward cattle ranching occurred despite profound historical and cultural differences among

colonists and rubber tappers in different portions of the Amazon.

This paper addresses the shift toward ranching among small-farm colonists and rubber

tappers in the Brazilian Amazon. We first provide a background discussion on the debate over

the environmental and economic benefits and costs of ranching in the Amazon. We then

introduce the two study cases: Uruará, a small farm colony located in the Brazilian state of Pará,

and Xapuri, the birthplace of the rubber tappers’ movement and gateway to the Chico Mendes

Extractive Reserve (CMER) in the state of Acre. We emphasize how the two populations differ

deeply with regard to their livelihood strategies due to their far-flung locations and their distinct

histories and cultures. The third part of the paper provides documentation of the continuing shift

from other land-use activities toward cattle ranching in the two sites since the late 1990s. We

draw on survey data for two time points from both study sites to explore reasons for the common

trend toward cattle. While economic explanations are important, other factors also emerge as

relevant to cattle adoption in the two sites. We conclude by discussing the implications of the

shift toward cattle ranching by small farm colonists and forest extractivists for the economy and

environment in the contemporary Amazon.

Cattle Ranching in the Brazilian Amazon

A large body of literature has emerged since the 1980s on the expanding ranching sector in

the Brazilian Amazon. Here we briefly review the impetus behind frontier expansion in Brazil

and the consequent discussions concerning cattle ranching in Amazonia.

64

In the 1960s, Brazil’s then-military government prioritized frontier expansion as a means

of integrating the Amazon with the rest of the country while also stimulating economic growth

via resource extraction (Guimarães 1991; Mahar 1979). On the one hand, the government sought

to avoid agrarian reform in long-settled regions by instituting colonization projects in the

Amazon; on the other, the state motivated capital investment in frontier areas with fiscal

incentives (Schmink & Wood 1992). By the 1970s, migration by farm families into colonization

areas proceeded alongside the establishment of large ranches by investors.

In this context, the ranching sector in the Brazilian Amazon expanded.1 From 1985 to

1996, the cattle herd in the Brazilian Amazon roughly doubled in size from about 18.5 million to

35.2 million heads. While the overall Brazilian herd also grew, the non-Amazon herd grew very

little during this period; most growth in Brazil’s cattle herd occurred in the Amazon. As a result,

the Amazon herd rose from 14% to 24% of Brazil’s overall herd during 1985-1995 (IBGE 1998).

During the same period, the land area under natural and planted pasture also grew in the

Amazon, from roughly 42 million to 51 million hectares. Meanwhile, overall pasture area in

Brazil stagnated in area, and pasture in non-Amazonian Brazil actually declined. Consequently,

the Brazilian Amazon’s percentage of pasture also rose, from 24% to 29% of the total pasture

area in Brazil. These data (Table 3-1) indicate the spatial expansion of ranching, and especially

rising stocking densities, and the growing importance of cattle ranching in the Amazon for Brazil

overall.

The growth of the cattle herd and the prevalence of pasture in the Brazilian Amazon

stimulated considerable debate about the social and ecological consequences of ranching on the

frontier. Socially, ranching in the Amazon and elsewhere in Brazil has long been associated 1 By “Brazilian Amazon” we refer to the “Legal” Amazon, a state planning region that encompasses nine states in the Amazon biome in Brazil as well as portions of the savannah (“cerrado”) along the Amazonian fringe (IBGE 1998).

65

Table 3-1. Cattle herds and pasture areas in the legal Amazon and Brazil, 1985-1995 Cattle (000s heads) Pasture (000s ha) State 1985 1995 1995 / 1985 1985 1995 1995 / 1985Rondonia 771 3,937 5.1 1,101 2,922 2.7Acre 334 847 2.5 326 614 1.9Amazonas 425 734 1.7 476 529 1.1Roraima 306 400 1.3 1,247 1,543 1.2Pará 3,487 6,080 1.7 6,612 7,456 1.1Amapá 47 60 1.3 479 245 0.5Tocantins 3,604 5,218 1.4 10,651 11,078 1.0Maranhão 2,973 3,619 1.2 5,027 5,311 1.1Mato Grosso 6,547 14,330 2.2 16,405 21,281 1.3 Brazilian Amazon 18,494 35,226 1.9 42,323 50,978 1.2 Brazil 128,042 153,058 1.2 179,188 177,700 1.0 Brazil Non-Amazon 109,548 117,832 1.1 136,865 126,722 0.9 Pct. Amazon 14.4 23.0 1.6 23.6 28.7 1.2

Sources: IBGE agricultural censuses (IBGE 2005).

with concentrated land ownership, rural exodus, and urban poverty because ranching is land-

extensive but requires little labor (Hecht 1985; Hecht & Cockburn 1990). Where landless

families arrived alongside land companies and other capitalized interest groups, land conflicts

have often arisen. These groups often encountered indigenous tribes and traditional forest

extractivists in the process, leading to conflicting land claims and rural violence (Almeida 1995;

Branford & Glock 1985; Schmink & Wood 1992). The “Parrot’s Beak” in Eastern Amazonia is

one such region, and it became infamous for rural violence by gunmen and police supported by

well-connected ranchers who sought to defend large land claims. This and other parts of the

Amazon have a record of human rights abuses, including assassinations of rural labor leaders,

clergy, and others who sought to resist land concentration in large cattle ranches (Simmons et al.

2007). This stimulated debate over the question of whether the expansion of extensive cattle

ranching on large properties constitutes social development in the Amazon. A second social

66

consequence has concerned the economic issue of productivity per hectare in extensive ranching,

as opposed to alternative land uses such as non-timber forest production, agroforestry, and

intensified agricultural systems. More diversified agricultural systems produce higher incomes

per hectare (Perz 2004; Tourrand & Veiga 2003), as do intensive systems that focus on

multicropping, improved fallows, and the like (Almeida 1996). This has raised questions about

the economic wisdom of extensive ranching as compared to alternative land uses that could

produce more value on less deforested land.

Debate has also transpired over the ecological impacts of cattle ranching in the Amazon.

One key issue has concerned doubts about pasture sustainability due to soil degradation.

Whereas early research suggested that clearing forest for pasture increased soil fertility (Serrão et

al. 1978), more recent work indicated that the increase was due to burning vegetation and its

effects were thus temporary (Barbosa & Fearnside 1996; Fearnside & Barbosa 1998). As a

consequence, pasture productivity declines over time, such that 8-15 years later, pastures must

either be abandoned due to weeds and soil compaction or renovated via tillage and investments

in improved pasture grasses. By the early 1990s, 50% of pastures in the Amazon were

considered degraded, and in many parts of the region, pastures had very low stocking rates and

beef productivity per hectare (Serrão & Homma 1993). The reliance on fire to clear secondary

vegetation has the economic advantage of being low-cost, but carries the disadvantages of

destroying seed stocks for future forest regeneration and facilitating regrowth of fire-adapted

plant species which prompts the need for more pasture burning. Another ecological problem with

cattle ranching concerns microclimatic change (Buschbacher 1986). Temperatures of surface

soils under pasture are much higher than in primary or secondary forest, which destroys

microorganisms important for soil health (Nepstad et al. 1998). Further, heat rising from pastures

67

can generate locally strong winds and may be altering local precipitation (Wu et al. 2000).

Finally, pastures support much less biodiversity than primary or secondary forest. Many species

of vertebrates will not cross pastures, and many plant species will not grow in pastures if pioneer

species are prevented from colonizing and initiating the process of succession. Furthermore,

fragmentation or edge effects have been shown to impact even greater areas beyond those

deforested, expanding the areas negatively affected beyond the pastures themselves (e.g.,

Laurance et al. 2002; Laurance et al. 2000; Skole & Tucker 1993).

In the context of these doubts, pasture and cattle management in the Amazon changed

considerably in the 1990s, and revisionist perspectives about cattle ranching in the region

consequently emerged to question the conventional wisdom. A key change has involved

improvements in pasture management, partly due to landholder experimentation, and partly due

to considerable extension research on pasture sustainability (e.g., Rueda et al. 2003; Smith et al.

1995; Valentim & Andrade 2005). The incorporation of new and improved grass varieties better

suited to the Amazonian biophysical environment has afforded pastures a longer use life and

hindered soil degradation and erosion, as well as weed invasions. At the same time, the

urbanization of Amazonian populations and the limited stocking densities in other regions of

Brazil have impelled both regional and national demand for beef from the region (Faminow

1998). Such demand allowed beef prices to remain stable even as Brazil’s ranching sector has

expanded, motivating the expansion of ranching in frontier areas of the Amazon. This

increasingly calls into question older arguments that ranching in the Amazon could only persist

with the support of state tax breaks and subsidies. Another factor has been the enormous effort to

control hoof-and-mouth and other cattle diseases via vaccination programs (MAPA 2005). Even

in frontier areas of the Amazon, there are cattle vaccination and hygiene programs, part of

68

Brazil’s objective of increasing the exporting of beef products once they meet international

sanitation standards (Lima et al. 2005; Smeraldi & May 2008). The prospect of beef exports

from the Amazon is of fundamental importance, since Amazonian beef is cheaper to produce

than that elsewhere in Brazil and most of the rest of the world, making it eminently competitive

globally (Nepstad et al. 2006b). Since Brazil has become one of the top exporters of beef

worldwide, Brazilian investors are increasingly looking to the Amazon frontier for continued

expansion as well as improvement of cattle ranching.

In this context, cattle ranching is increasingly being adopted by groups other than

corporate and individual large landholders in the Amazon. Smallholder colonists, who originally

came to northern Brazil to engage primarily in production of annual and perennial crops, are

increasingly turning to cattle (Ludewigs 2006; Pacheco 2005; e.g., Walker et al. 2000).

Similarly, forest extractivists, often the descendants of rubber tappers during the Rubber Boom a

century ago, are also clearing forest and breeding cattle and other livestock (e.g., Gomes 2001

and 2005; Ehringhaus 2005;Vadjunec 2007). Consequently, despite the Amazon’s land

abundance, cattle ranching is no longer the purview of large capitalized operations. This raises

questions about the specific economic processes at work that prompt cattle adoption for

smallholder colonists and forest extractivists have very different cultures and histories, and rather

different avenues for market access. In the next section, we focus on two concrete study cases,

one involving smallholder colonists and the other featuring forest extractivists.

Study Cases

Our two study cases are the municipalities of Uruará, in the state of Pará in the eastern

Brazilian Amazon, and Xapuri, in the state of Acre in the western Brazilian Amazon (Figure 3-

1). While such choices might seem capricious or arbitrary, we selected these two sites for four

reasons.

69

Figure 3-1. Map of the two study cases in the Brazilian Amazon

First, we have fairly recent multi-temporal data about land use for both sites, which makes

possible the analysis we pursue. Second, the two sites are located far apart in opposite ends of

the Brazilian Amazon. This means that they are, in effect, independent of one another, such that

the changes they incur can be viewed as occurring in parallel, whether influenced by a common

external factor or not. This makes it possible to argue that similar processes such as cattle

adoption are not due to one case influencing the other. Third, as a result of their geographic

separation, Uruará and Xapuri have very different histories, being founded at different times for

contrasting purposes and attracting distinct interest groups. And fourth, the cultures and

70

production systems in these two locations differ substantially in terms of the use of forests and

cleared land. Thus, it is possible to document contrasts in past land use and livelihoods in the two

sites in order to argue that their similarity in terms of cattle adoption is a culturally unexpected

phenomenon. That in turn prompts our attention to economic and other factors as explanations

for expanding cattle and pasture among groups not previously noted for cattle ranching.

In this section, we provide brief historical overviews of our two cases, highlighting their

differences. Whereas Uruará is a young roadside frontier town, Xapuri has a history that extends

back over a century and began as a riverside entrepot for forest product marketing.

We highlight contrasts in resource management in these two study areas by paying close

attention to the current dynamics of key economic products. First, in order to facilitate some

initial comparison between our study sites, we rely on secondary data sources from Brazilian

censuses and production annuals for municipal-level data (IBGE 1998; IBGE 2007).

Uruará

Uruará is a colonist community in the Brazilian state of Pará situated on the Transamazon

highway (IDESP 1990). Uruará was founded in the early 1970s as a roadside colonization

project to resettle rural families from the Brazilian Northeast. The state agency for colonization

and land titling, INCRA, surveyed and distributed lots of 100 hectares (ha) to a first wave of

colonists, who began to develop small farms. Colonists first planted annual crops, later followed

by perennials. This formed a relatively homogeneous social structure in Uruará, where small-

scale family farms still predominate. By the end of the 1970s, local churches provided support to

incipient small producer organizations (Toni 2003).

In the early 1980s, Brazil’s economic crisis led the state to effectively abandon official

colonization, leaving the smallholder colonists to fend for themselves. But in the mid-1980s,

perennials such as cocoa and black pepper commanded high regional prices, which prompted

71

households to expand their clearings for cash crops (IDESP 1990). This stimulated a second

wave of in-migration, raising the municipality’s population to 25,000 by 1991 (IBGE 1996).

Growth during the 1980s prompted church leaders and producer groups to lobby for the colony

to become a new municipality, which occurred in 1987 (IDESP 1990; Toni 2003). The

municipality of Uruará covers an area of about 10,066 km2.

Economic dynamism in Uruará in the 1980s gave way to difficulties in the 1990s

(Nascimento and Drummond 2003). Pests attacked cocoa and black pepper, reducing cash crop

production. This occurred at the same time as perennial crops also incurred price declines, which

reduced agricultural incomes. These difficulties stimulated political mobilization in Uruará, as

small producer organizations as well as business interests and local politicians sought new

directions for community development (Toni 2003). This period also witnessed the emergence of

the MPST (Movimento pela Sobrevivencia da Transamazonica, or Movement for Transamazon

Survival), which helped form alliances among municipal producer groups (Nascimento and

Drummond 2003). In Uruará, a series of municipal workshops resulted in the PGDU, or Global

Plan for Uruará Development, which identifies various strategies for sustainable development as

via agroforestry and reforestation (FUNDASUR 1996).

At the same time, the Amazon Development Bank, BASA, made available a special credit

line for small producers, FNO (Fundo Constitucional de Financiamento do Norte). Many local

organizations moved quickly to obtain FNO funds, and used the financing for pasture expansion

and livestock purchases (Toni 1999). As a result, cattle ranching expanded in Uruará during the

1990s. Smallholders shifted to cattle due to the more stable prices than those for perennials, the

ability to sell cattle year-round instead of at harvest as with perennials, and easier

commercialization due to trucking lines from slaughterhouses with refrigeration (Tourrand &

72

Veiga 2003). Establishment of a vaccination program in Uruará improved cattle health and

survival, and made ranching more profitable.

During the 1990s, Uruará's population continued to grow, reaching 45,000 by 2000 (IBGE

2000). By 2000, 23% of the forests in the municipality had been cleared (Nepstad et al. 2000,

cited in Nascimento and Drummond 2003: 126).

The 2000 elections again shifted the political affiliations of those in local power back to

supporters of the PGDU (Toni 2003). This coincided with a series of new (or belatedly

implemented) initiatives such as for soil recuperation, forestation with economically valuable

species (timber and non-timber). As a result, since 2000, Uruará has exhibited more complex

dynamics in terms of its land use and livelihood systems.

Table 3-2 summarizes changes in 5-year increments for selected indicators of key

economic activities in Uruará from 1990 to 2005 (IBGE 2007). Similarly, Figure 3-2 shows trend

lines for annual changes over the same period. In brief, annual crops (i.e., subsistence food crops

such as rice, beans, corn, manioc, etc.) declined and then rose, but did not return to their 1990

level by 2005. Preliminary figures for 2006 (not presented) indicate a rapid decline to a level

below 1990. Perennial crops (i.e. tree crops for commercial products, such as cocoa, coffee, and

black pepper) rose in importance, but most of the rise occurred in the early 1990s, as Figure 3-2

makes evident. However, it was the cattle herd which grew fastest, from roughly 43,000 head in

1990 to over 250,000 in 2005. There was a surge in the early 1990s that corresponds with

difficulties in crops, but most of the expansion in cattle in Uruará has happened since 2000.

Timber extraction, performed by local sawmills in cooperation with landowners, also rose, from

roughly 16,000 m3 in logs in 1990 to 56,000 in 2005. It is worth noting, however, as shown in

Figure 3-2, that this value was a decline from 2004, as 2005 witnessed government inspections

73

and closings in sawmills due to illegal timber extraction. Non-timber forest products associated

with traditional extractivism (such as rubber and Brazil-nuts) were insignificant or in terminal

decline in Uruará.

Together, these indicators portray a young frontier community with a declining focus on

annual crops, slow growth in perennials, but rapid growth in cattle, an important timber sector

perhaps with an uncertain future, and little by way of non-timber forest extractivism. As Figure

3-2 shows, from 1990 to 2005, it is cattle that grew the most in Uruará.

Table 3-2. Crop cultivation, cattle ranching, and forest extractivism in Uruará and Xapuri, 1990-2005

Annual Perennial Cattle Timber Rubber Brazil Nut Crops (ha) Crops (ha) (heads) (m3) (T) (T) Uruará 1990 11,663 7,771 43,200 16,500 0 350 1995 7,014 9,923 110,000 40,410 0 28 2000 7,851 9,573 95,345 37,970 0 55 2005 9,348 11,465 250,739 56,100 0 4 Xapuri 1990 8,083 310 61,171 10,210 773 1,270 1995 3,325 255 61,204 10,930 638 1,019 2000 2,594 334 76,200 11,430 302 636 2005 3,791 241 190,986 12,720 479 2,007 Source: IBGE agricultural production annuals (IBGE 2005).

Xapuri

Xapuri is located in the far western Brazilian state of Acre, in the southeastern or “Alto

Acre” portion of the state at the convergence of the Acre and Xapuri Rivers. Historically, the

municipality of Xapuri covered about 8,137 km2 until 1999, when it was divided and reduced to

4,705 km2 (Toni & Souza 2003). Xapuri was founded in 1905 and is the second-oldest city in

Acre after the state capital, Rio Branco. Both towns emerged as market centers along rivers,

which served as the main means of transport during the Rubber Boom (1880-1920). As a port for

74

rubber and a longstanding town along the river, Xapuri came to be known as the “little princess

of Acre” (“a Princesinha do Acre”).

0.0

100.0

200.0

300.0

400.0

500.0

600.0

700.0

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Annuals (ha)

Perennials (ha)

Cattle (heads)

Timber (m3)

Rubber (T)

Brazil-nut (T)

Figure: 3-2. Change in crop cultivation, cattle ranching, and forest extractivism, Uruará, PA

1990-2005 (1990=100). Source: IBGE Agricultural Production Annuals (IBGE 2005)

Xapuri was once inhabited by indigenous tribes such as the Xapuri, Catiana and Meneteri,

who were joined and then replaced in the 19th century by migrants mainly from the Brazilian

northeast, who came to the region attracted by the great promise of wealth and prosperity from

the rubber industry (Rancy 1992). The high density of rubber trees found in the Alto Acre region

made Xapuri a zone for extraction and a starting point in the chain of rubber production

downstream for export to North Atlantic economies. During the rubber boom, real estate in

Xapuri was highly valued and among the lands contested between Brazil and Bolivia in the 1902

75

“Acre Revolution,” in which a brief conflict resulted in Brazil acquiring Acre and the official

control of important rubber tapping territories (Bakx 1988).

A key hallmark of rubber tapping during the boom years was the aviamento system of

debt-peonage between seringueiros (rubber tappers) and their patrões (rubber barons) (Weinstein

1983). Rubber barons claimed large land areas called seringais (rubber estates) which they

divided up among rubber tappers, who each had access rights to a colocação (forest homestead)

amidst several trails in the forest that passed by rubber trees. Rubber tappers arrived in Acre,

however, in debt to the rubber baron for the price of their passage, and were prohibited from

growing their own food crops or breeding their own livestock. This went hand-in-hand with the

additional requirement that rubber tappers could only buy subsistence goods from the rubber

baron on whose land they worked. Furthermore, rubber tappers could only sell their rubber to

their particular rubber baron. These rules, along with falsified bookkeeping, ensured continued

debt for rubber tappers and a focus on rubber extractivism to the exclusion of agriculture or

ranching.

Brazil’s monopoly on rubber production was broken when an English botanist smuggled

rubber seeds out of the Brazilian Amazon to the Royal Botanic Garden in Kew, outside London,

which were later introduced in Malaysia (Dean 1987). Such plantations were free of pests of

rubber endemic in the Amazon and yielded production at much lower prices. Malaysian

plantations exhibited rapidly rising production in the 1900s, and by the 1910s, rubber from the

Amazon was being outcompeted, causing the boom to go bust. With the collapse of the rubber

trade in Amazonia, by the 1920s, Xapuri town and the residents of the nearby rubber estates

entered into a deep economic crisis (Tocantins 1979). This resulted in the total abandonment of

many rubber estates by the rubber barons, leaving the rubber tappers in the forest to fend for

76

themselves. The rubber economy experienced a short resurgence in Brazil during World War II,

when the United States and its allies were cut off from the Malaysian rubber trade when the

Japanese occupied Malaya (Corrêa 1967). Xapuri saw a short period of growth during this time.

It appeared that the old “Princess of Acre” was re-awakening as new migrants from the

Northeast began to flock to the region to work on the rubber estates as “rubber soldiers” recruited

by the Brazilian government for the war effort (Martinello 1988).

After the war, however, the rubber economy in the region once again collapsed, leaving

the rubber tappers all but forgotten by Brazilian society. Without many livelihood options, but

having established a strong identity with forest extractivism, rubber tappers responded to the

crisis by staying into the forest. However, these boom-bust dynamics, along with a newfound

freedom from the aviamento system, led to the diversification of livelihoods among rural

communities around Xapuri and other parts of the Acre. During the post-boom period, other

forest products such as Brazil-nuts became more important, and rubber tappers began to engage

in small-scale subsistence agriculture (e.g., Campbell 1996). By 1960, the municipality of Xapuri

had a population of 13,256 (IBGE 1973).

Xapuri and the rest of eastern Acre were to undergo further changes in the 1970s, when

Brazil’s government built highways such as the Transamazon to facilitate the establishment of

frontier towns like Uruará. Another highway, the BR-364 through neighboring Rondônia,

connected Acre to southern Brazil. While migrants from the south flooded into Rondônia by the

thousands beginning in the 1970s, the governor of Acre, Wanderlei Dantas (1971-74), gave a

speech before investors in São Paulo, extolling the virtues of Acre’s relatively cheap and

extensive land, long since abandoned by the rubber barons (Bakx 1988; Silva 1990). Overlooked,

however, were the forest communities that formed after the rubber barons departed. The arrival

77

of roads and investors led to conflicts over the organization of space as defined by key natural

resources. Whereas rubber tappers still viewed the area around Xapuri in terms of rubber estates

and forest homesteads defined by the location of rubber trees, large ranchers defined properties

by geographic boundaries in terms of cleared land with good access to roads. By the 1980s,

forgotten rubber soldiers found themselves confronting cattle ranchers who sought evictions of

forest-based communities in ostensibly empty rubber estates.

Rubber tappers fought back, mobilizing forest communities and rural workers to engage

in non-violent forms of resistance beginning in Xapuri, making it the birthplace of the rubber

tappers movement (Calaça 1993; Sobrinho 1992). In 1977, a rural workers union formed in

Xapuri to resist encroachment by ranchers and other outsiders. In the 1980s, rural violence

elsewhere in the Amazon proceeded alongside intensifying land conflicts in Acre. The murder of

Chico Mendes on December 22 1988, a year of unprecedented levels of deforestation and

burning, catapulted the rubber tappers into international headlines as defenders of the Amazon

rain forest (Allegretti 1989; Hecht & Cockburn 1990; Schwartzman 1989).

In this context, growing recognition of the social and ecological consequences of

deforestation for large-scale ranching prompted the creation of federal Extractive Reserves (ERs)

(Allegretti 1990; Schwartzman 1992). Since the late 1980s, the ER concept first gained currency

in Brazil and today there are 64 ERs in Amazonia covering an area of over 12 million hectares.

The ER model has paved the way for the creation of people-based protected areas (Ehringhaus

2005) that are being implemented by various institutions at both the federal and state levels in

response to changing political contexts and opportunities for Amazon conservation. ERs

recognized the productive activities of rubber tappers, thus allowing for the productive use of

standing forest per traditional livelihoods. Rubber tapper communities collectively manage areas

78

corresponding to old rubber estates, whereas each rubber tapper household retains access rights

to the rubber trails around their homestead. Federal ER land belongs to the federal government,

but families have rights to use the forest for their livelihoods. In general, ER families engage in

sustainable activities such as the extraction of non-timber forest products (NTFPs), including

rubber and Brazil-nuts. ER rules impose a deforestation limit of 10% of the total area of a

reserve, along with a 5% limit on pasture area, and commercial timber extraction is prohibited,

though debated. The first federal ER was the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve, or CMER,

established in 1990, which currently encompasses 930,985 ha, or nearly 1,000 km2

(GovernmentofAcre 2000). The CMER spans several municipalities in Acre, but its main market

gateway is the town of Xapuri. Now linked by both river and road, Xapuri remains a market

center for forest-based production despite roadside deforestation in cattle ranches that border the

CMER. By 2000, Xapuri had a population of 11,956, roughly the size it had 40 years before.

Establishment of the CMER opened a new chapter in Xapuri’s history, namely that of the

struggle to make the ER model economically as well as socially and environmentally viable

(Cavalcanti 2002; Rego 1999). Rubber prices went into decline in the 1980s, and this continued

into the 1990s. Low market prices and organizational difficulties threatened the viability of

administering the ERs and supporting forest communities (Anderson 1994).

The killing of Chico Mendes seemed to fracture the rubber tapper movement and its

battle against cattle ranchers, who believed they would go unpunished. But Mendes’ ideas led to

continued social mobilization during the 1990s that generated new organizations to support

forest communities in Xapuri and other municipalities encompassing the CMER. By 2000, the

agroextractive cooperative in Xapuri, AMOREX, experienced substantial success, having grown

to 360 members with a strong political voice in organizing extractivism at the municipal level

79

(Michelotti 2000). In addition, Julio Barbosa de Aquino, a rubber tapper who stood shoulder to

shoulder with Chico Mendes in the confrontations with ranchers, won office as mayor of Xapuri

in 1996. He was reelected in 2000.

In the 1998 state and national elections, movement leaders won seats in the state and

national congress, and a forester and former political advisor of Mendes, Jorge Viana, was

elected Acre’s governor (1998-2006). The daughter of a rubber tapper from Acre, Marina Silva,

was elected Senator and became Brazil’s Minister of the Environment after the Presidential

election in 2002, when Luis Inácio Lula da Silva, a union labor leader from the south who had

supported Chico Mendes to organize rubber tappers in Acre, became president of Brazil.

In light of these victories, support of forest extractivism in Acre has grown considerably.

The new state government in Acre, known as the “Forest Government,” pursued numerous

policy initiatives to capitalize on Acre’s comparative advantage – forest resources – by

improving infrastructure, subsidizing the processing and commercialization of NTFPs, and

strengthening certification of sustainably harvested timber (GovernmentofAcre 2005;

GovernmentofAcre 2006; Viana 2004). In the 2000 municipal elections, politicians supported by

social movements won several offices in Xapuri, consolidating their grip on local power.

Xapuri politicians and movement leaders have since engaged in local planning in support

of forest extractivism. These efforts resulted in the PDLIS (Plano de Desenvolvimento Local

Integrado e Sustentavel de Xapuri), a sustainable development plan for the municipality (Toni &

Souza 2003). Xapuri has consequently become the focus of several green development projects.

The forest government has invested in the local processing of Brazil-nut production. It has

financed a condom factory in Xapuri to use locally produced “green” latex to supply condoms in

conjunction with the Federal Ministry of Health in an attempt to revitalize the local rubber

80

industry. The long story of forest extractivism and political struggle in Acre was recently

portrayed in Brazil with the Globo network’s telenovela (an extended nightly television mini-

series) celebrating the rich history of the region, featuring the town of Xapuri.

But regardless of these many changes in support of forest extractivism, cattle ranching is

expanding in Acre (Toni 2007; Valentim et al. 2002; see also Table 1). What is more, this land

use activity is not confined to larger-scale landowners but is growing among colonists and

erstwhile rubber tappers (Gomes 2001; Ludewigs 2006; Rêgo et al. 2003). During the 1990s,

deforestation rose in the CMER (Sassagawa 1999). Analysis of land-use change in six rubber

estates with high deforestation rates indicate that during the period of 1986 to 2003, deforestation

accelerated over time, mostly for pasture creation.

Cattle ranching is expanding in the municipality of Xapuri, where the rubber tapper

movement first emerged. Table 3-2 and Figure 3-3 provide indicators of key rural economic

activities in the municipality of Xapuri, from 1990 to 2005, allowing comparisons and contrasts

over time and with the case of Uruará. During this period, the land area in Xapuri under annual

crops declined, while perennials varied without exhibiting a distinct trend. The number of cattle

did not change during the early 1990s, but in the late 1990s and especially since 2000, growth

has accelerated. As Figure 3-3 shows that by 2005 Xapuri had more than three times the number

of cattle as it had in 1990 and more than twice the number in 2000. At the same time, timber

extraction showed a moderate rise. Rubber, on the other hand, declined in importance during the

1990s, but has risen again since 2000, perhaps a result of rubber subsidies provided by the local

forest government. Similarly, Brazil-nuts went into decline, but recovered by 2005, in part due to

local government support for the commercialization of local cooperatives, and especially due to

the rising price for Brazil-nut on the international market. What emerges from a review of rural

81

economic products in Xapuri is a picture somewhat different than in Uruará. Uruará has a

population roughly four times that of Xapuri. Perennial crops are more important in Uruará,

whereas NTFPs are more important in Xapuri. But in both places, cattle is expanding rapidly,

and faster than any other of the key economic products reviewed here.

The timing of the expansion of cattle in Xapuri raises very interesting questions. Many

analysts, including ourselves, have argued that the rise in cattle was due to declines in prices (and

therefore extraction and commercialization) for rubber, Brazil-nuts, and other NTFPs (e.g.,

Gomes 2001; Toni 2007). But as Table 3-2 and Figure 3-3 show, cattle herds in Xapuri have

expanded since 2000 alongside the expansion of both rubber and Brazil-nut extraction. It is

likely that livelihood diversification among forest communities in the ER, particularly in the

CMER, may help explain the dynamics of these products (e.g., Ehringhaus 2005; Vadjunec

2007; Wallace 2004). However, the municipal-level census data do not allow a breakdown of

cattle ownership and the other indicators among specific social groups such as rubber tappers in

the CMER. This limitation motivates our analysis of field survey data, pursued for both small

farm colonists in Uruará and families in the CMER.

Field Survey Methods and Data

In this section we provide a more in-depth exploration of rural households and their

livelihoods, comparing colonist families in Uruará to forest homesteads in the CMER in Xapuri

and neighboring municipalities. In particular, we draw on data for two time points in both sites,

and feature households that were re-interviewed, which facilitates temporal comparisons. The

greater detail in our survey data and the ability to compare across sites and over time affords a

richer portrayal of the circumstances and dynamics of cattle adoption among small farm

colonists and forest extractivists, even in far-flung portions of the Brazilian Amazon.

82

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0

350.0

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Annuals (ha)

Perennials (ha)

Cattle (heads)

Timber (m3)

Rubber (T)

Brazil-nut (T)

Figure 3-3. Change in crop cultivation, cattle ranching, and forest extractivism, Xapuri, AC 1990-2005 (1990=100). Source: IBGE Agricultural Production Annuals (IBGE 2005)

Uruará

Survey data for Uruará refer to 1996 and 2002. In June and July 1996, the second author

participated in a nine-member research team consisting of North American and Brazilian social

and agricultural scientists from the University of Texas-Austin, Florida State University, and

EMBRAPA/CPATU who administered a survey questionnaire to farm households in Uruará

(Perz et al. 2006; e.g., Walker et al. 2000). The questionnaire was divided into two components,

where the first addressed household characteristics and the second concerned the lot(s) held by

households. The household component included items such as family age composition, sources

of income, and material wealth. The lot component included items such as land use, access to

credit, use of agricultural technologies, and distance to market. It also included numerous

83

questions on resource use, including agriculture and ranching, which in turn included questions

on pasture formation as well as cattle management.

Systematic sampling of farm lots proved intractable because not all lots had houses.

Moreover, systematic sampling of houses encountered was problematic because residents were

sometimes absent. We therefore sampled by “first opportunity” of residents encountered on their

lot. We employed a cadastral map of Uruará from the Pará state office of Brazil’s agricultural

research agency, EMBRAPA/ CPATU, as our sampling frame, to ensure that sampling was not

clustered spatially or selective of households by socioeconomic status2 .The 1996 sample

includes 261 households, or 12% of all rural establishments in Uruará at the time (IBGE 1998).

The sample also includes 347 lots, as 25% of households held more than one lot, and the same

questions were asked about each lot.

In 2002, another team of North American and Brazilian social and agricultural scientists

from Michigan State University, IMAZON, and the Federal University of Bahia administered a

similar questionnaire in Uruará (Aldrich et al. 2006). This questionnaire had many of the same

items as the 1996 instrument, but was more extensive and included additional questions about

pasture and cattle, including commercialization of cattle. A key goal of the 2002 fieldwork was

to locate lots and households sampled in 1996 in order to constitute a panel for temporal

comparisons. While a lot is a geographic entity, a household may possess one or more lots that in

turn comprise a property. The 2002 sample includes 143 households, which held 170 lots in 1996

and 221 lots in 2002. The difference is due to sales and especially purchases of lots during the

interim. We defined the panel on the basis of whether a lot had been in the 1996 sample. This

2 The 1996 Brazilian population count (IBGE 1998b) and 1995/96 Brazilian agricultural census (IBGE 1998a) allow for comparisons to assess sampling bias. In terms of household size and land allocation, the survey data are very similar to census data for Uruará sample. For more, see e.g. Perz, et al. Perz, S. G., Walker, R. T. & Caldas, M. M. 2006 Beyond population and environment: Household demographic life cycles and land use allocation among small farms in the Amazon. Human Ecology 34, 829-849..

84

therefore includes lots in a given property in both 1996 and 2002, as well as lots in one property

in 1996 and another in 2002. While this hinders the correspondence somewhat, it helps capture

dynamics on both lots and properties from the 1996 sample to the 2002 sample.3

Xapuri/Chico Mendes Ertractive Reserve

The first and third authors conducted interviews with families in the CMER in 2000

(Gomes 2001) and 2004 as part of their graduate research (Gomes 2008; Vadjunec 2007;

Vadjunec et al. nd). In May through August of 2000, the first author employed a questionnaire

containing items on migration history, association memberships, land use and forest

extractivism, and assets and wealth. The initial sample included 66 households in four seringais

(old rubber estates) of the CMER in Xapuri and two neighboring municipalities, Brasileia and

Assis Brasil. These locations were selected for variability in terms of their distance to Xapuri

town and various levels of deforestation (Sassagawa 1999). While this does not guarantee

representativeness of all households in the CMER, it does capture much of the heterogeneity in

the reserve.4

3 One might argue that because the lots included in the panel for the two dates are different, the panel is not comparable. But if we link data for the two dates in terms of production systems, in the presence of an active land market, the result will necessarily be different lots in the household panel at different moments, which itself is necessary to capture in order to observe the changes in production systems over time. See Aldrich, et al. 2006 for more. 4 In terms of basic variables such as household size and resource management activities, the data reported here are broadly similar to data collected by others in the CMER for similar dates. For example, government data for the entire CMER indicate that forest homesteads average 671.7 ha per household, a figure somewhat higher than the averages for our full CMER samples and but similar to the CMER panel IBAMA/CNPT. 1999 Projeto RESEX: Um Futuro Sustentável para a Amazônia, pp. 30. Brasilia: Ministério do Meio Ambiente - MMA; IBAMA/CNPT.. Data from 1996/1997 for another sample from the CMER Cavalcanti, F. d. S. 2002 A política ambiental da Amazônia: Um estudo sobre as reservas extrativistas Campinas, SP: Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Rêgo, J. F., Costa Filho, O. S. & Braga, R. R. A. 2003 Análise econômica dos sistemas de produção familiar rural da região do Vale do Acre, 1996/1997. Rio Branco, Acre, Brazil: UFAC/SEBRAE/Ford Foundation. indicate average brazil nut extraction of 2178 kg per household, which is similar to our values for 2000, especially the panel data. Rubber extraction reported in the same sources for 1996/1997 was around 633 kg, higher than we report in 2000, but that is consistent with the ongoing decline during the 1995-2000 period as reported in those sources as well as in state data (see Figure 3-3). Finally, the other sample reports an average of 3.6 heads of cattle per CMER household, a value lower than we report, but also consistent with state data indicating a rapid rise in cattle since the mid-1990s (Figure 3-3).

85

In 2004 and 2005, the first and third authors conducted interviews with households in the

CMER. They jointly designed a more extensive questionnaire with additional items on

commercialization of agricultural production, forest extractivism, and livestock, as well as land

tenure rules for resource use in the CMER. These researchers also obtained a larger sample,

totaling 149 households in eight seringais (four of the same seringais of 2000) in the reserve in

Xapuri, Brasiléia, and Assis Brasil. Selection criteria was based on the pre-processing of satellite

imagery, and discussions with local leaders and NGOs operating in the region (Vadjunec et al.

nd). We targeted a variety of communities that had both real and perceived differences regarding

deforestation and productive activities ranging from NTFPs to commercial agriculture and cattle

ranching.

The 2004/2005 sample includes some of the same households from the 2000 research,

affording a panel for temporal comparisons. We compared the names of forest homesteads and

their owners in the two data sets and identified 35 homesteads interviewed at both time points.

Because this panel is smaller than both of the full samples for 2000 and 2004/2005, we will

present data for both full samples as well as the panel homesteads at the two time points. This

affords temporal comparisons among the panel homesteads as well as between the panel and the

larger samples.

Cattle Adoption Among Smallholder Colonists and Forest Extractivists

We divided our analysis of the field survey data into three parts. First, we present

socioeconomic indicators for the samples and panels in Uruará and the CMER to characterize the

households. This provides some baseline comparisons across the sites and over time. The second

part of the analysis then evaluates natural resource management in the two sites in terms of land

use, forest extractivism, agricultural production, and cattle ranching. This enables comparisons

across the sites and over time in terms of land use and resource management dynamics. The third

86

and final part of the analysis focuses on management of cattle and pasture. Here we examine the

most recent data and compare the sites in terms of the prevalence of cattle ranching, use of

inputs, herd composition, purchases and sales of cattle; we also evaluate certain site-specific

issues, namely obedience to land-use restrictions (in the CMER) and future plans for ranching (in

Uruará) and sustainable forestry (in the CMER).

Socioeconomic Comparisons

Table 3-3 presents full sample and panel data for the Uruará surveys in 1996 and 2002, and

Table 3-4 does the same for the CMER surveys in 2000 and 2004/2005. Both tables provide

basic and largely comparable indicators of household background, institutional context, and

market access across the sites and survey years. Each table also provides p-values from t-tests

comparing means for the two time points for which we have panel data. Moreover, Table 3-4

provides p-values for t-tests comparing the most recent samples for the two sites.5

By household background, we refer to length of residence, whether the household

interviewed was the first occupant on that property or homestead, whether the household

interviewed had acquired the site via inheritance, and the number of residents. Together these

variables help characterize the tenure of the family on their property/homestead as well as the

age of the place relative to the length of a family’s occupation. We would expect families in

Uruará, a relatively new frontier area, to have shorter residence durations and to be living on

younger properties than the homesteads on rubber estates in the CMER. We also expect

durations of residence to rise from the first time point of the surveys to the second, and for first

occupancy to decline and inheritance to rise. Finally, we expect there to be large families

5 All t-tests are two-tailed tests that do not assume equal variances in the two samples being compared.

87

(several members), due to the importance of family labor in small-scale rural production

systems.

Tables 3-3 and 3-4 largely bear out these expectations. For Uruará, Table 3-3 compares

the 1996 full and panel sample data to the 2002 panel data. It is worth noting that the values for

the household background variables are similar between the full and panel data in 1996, though

the panel is somewhat selective of older and larger households.

But there is a statistically significant rise in the length of residence in the panel from 1996

to 2002, though inheritance declined (albeit from an already very low level), and family size

declined. Other research suggests that decreasing family size is due to aging and relocation of

children, whether to Uruará town or their own properties (e.g., Perz et al. 2006). Table 3-4

presents the CMER comparisons for 2000 and 2004/2005. There, the panel also appears very

similar to the full samples for both time points, though as in Uruará, the CMER panel appears

somewhat selective of older, larger households. But whether we compare the full samples or the

panel across time points, we find that length of residence rose over time, which perhaps is a

positive indicator of the viability of ERs as a successful land tenure model, with little out-

migration in the CMER. First occupancy also exhibits an increase over time, perhaps due to the

division of homesteads in order to establish new family homesteads. Inheritance declined though

the difference is not significant.

Finally, the number of residents rose significantly, perhaps due to in-migration, as living

conditions have improved in the CMER, especially in the rubber estates bordering towns. Many

family members, especially the younger ones, who may have previously moved to town looking

for job opportunities and/or education, have returned to live in the CMER.

88

Table 3-3. Socioeconomic indicators, farm households in Uruará, Pará Uruará 1996 1 Uruará 1996 Uruará 2002 p(t-test), Full Sample Panel Sample Panel Sample 1996-2002 Household Background Length of Residence (Years) 12.05 (6.78) 2 13.49 (7.14) 17.81 (13.56) <0.01 First Occupancy (0=No, 1=Yes) 0.33 (0.47) 0.36 (0.48) NI N/A Acquired via Inheritance (0=No, 1=Yes) 0.02 (0.15) 0.03 (0.16) 0.00 (0.00) 0.08 Residents on Property (Persons) 7.23 (4.58) 7.47 (5.01) 5.81 (4.80) 0.04 Institutional context Community Assoc. Member (0=No, 1=Yes) 0.32 (0.47) 0.26 (0.44) 0.60 (0.49) <0.01 Labor Union Member (0=No, 1=Yes) NI NI 0.45 (0.50) N/A Credit (0=No, 1=Yes) 0.57 (0.50) 0.70 (0.46) NI N/A Receiving Retirement Income (0=No, 1=Yes) 0.23 (0.42) 0.23 (0.42) NI N/A Market Access Distance to Town (km) 28.09 (13.87) 25.12 (11.82) 24.98 (13.18) 0.93 Notes. 1. The full Uruará sample contains 261 households and 347 lots; the Uruará panel contains 143 households with 170 lots in 1996 and 221 lots in 2002. 2. Values shown are either proportions (for binomial variables) or arithmetic means (for continuous variables). Values in parentheses are standard deviations.

89

Table 3-4. Socioeconomic indicators, seringal households in the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve, Acre 2000 1 2000 2004/2005 2004/2005 p(t-test), p(t-test), Full Sample Panel Sample Panel Sample Full Sample 2000-2004 Uruará Household Background Length of Residence (Years) 12.12 (10.24)2 13.36 (10.87) 15.45 (9.49) 13.75 (12.43) 0.38 0.02 First Occupancy (0=No, 1=Yes) 0.09 (0.29) 0.11 (0.32) 0.14 (0.36) 0.27 (0.45) 0.69 N/A Acquired via Inheritance (0=No, 1=Yes) 0.23 (0.42) 0.22 (0.42) 0.11 (0.32) 0.19 (0.40) 0.23 <0.01 Residents on Property (Persons) 5.52 (2.76) 6.22 (2.65) 7.89 (2.87) 5.86 (2.75) 0.01 0.91 Institutional context Community Assoc. Member (0=No, 1=Yes) 0.65 (0.48) 0.64 (0.49) 0.68 (0.47) 0.61 (0.49) 0.74 0.75 Labor Union Member (0=No, 1=Yes) 0.55 (0.50) 0.53 (0.51) 0.70 (0.47) 0.69 (0.46) 0.15 <0.01 Credit (0=No, 1=Yes) 0.36 (0.48) 0.47 (0.51) 0.51 (0.51) 0.49 (0.50) 0.72 N/A Receiving Retirement Income (0=No, 1=Yes) 0.15 (0.36) 0.17 (0.38) NI NI N/A N/A Market Access Distance to Town (km) 40.13 (59.45) ?? ?? 43.81 (22.42) ?? ?? Notes. 1. The CMER panel contains 35 households, each with one colocação. The full CMER sample in 1999 includes 66 households, and the full sample in 2004 includes 149 households, each with one colocação. 2. Values shown are either proportions (for binomial variables) or arithmetic means (for continuous variables). Values in parentheses are standard deviations.

90

This may be because the government created subsidies for rubber production, Brazil nut

prices increased substantially, there were improvements in transportation via opening of unpaved

feeder roads in the CMER, and huge improvements in education programs for both younger and

older residents.

Comparing the two sites, we find distinct durations of residence (though actually

somewhat longer in Uruará), and greater first occupancy in Uruará than the CMER (as expected,

though the lack of comparable households for similar time points hamper this comparison), no

significant difference in inheritance (perhaps less in Uruará, due to an active land market there

and the land tenure system of the CMER in which the government owns the land), and similar

numbers of family members, though with different dynamics (a decline due to aging in Uruará

and a rise perhaps due to returning migrants in the CMER). In terms of household background,

the two sites differ in many ways, though not in labor availability.

We also make socioeconomic comparisons in terms of the institutional context in which

families find themselves. By institutional context we mean whether a household is a member of a

community or neighborhood association, whether it has one or more rural labor union members,

whether it had received bank credit, and whether it received retirement income. We view the first

two indicators in terms of social capital via solidarity and ties to social movements (Vadjunec

2007); we see the last two as key sources of financial capital, which can complement labor assets

and alter resource use. In general we expect social capital to be important in both sites, but

especially in the CMER given its history of successful grassroots social mobilization, though we

expect access to capital to be greater in Uruará due to the importance of FNO-e in the 1990s.

Table 3-3 summarizes the institutional variables for Uruará and Table 3-4 does the same

for the CMER. In Uruará, some differences appear between the full 1996 sample and the panel,

91

which suggests less membership in community organizations and more access to credit. Some

lack of comparability hinders temporal comparisons, but it is evident that community

organization membership rose significantly over time. In 1996, there was widespread but not

universal access to credit, and roughly one in five households sampled were receiving retirement

income. In the CMER, some differences also appear between the full samples and the panel,

where there appears greater membership as well as credit. Community association membership

levels were high and steady over time, labor union membership was somewhat less common but

rose somewhat, and retirement income is infrequent (at least in 2000). It is important for the

rubber tappers to be associated with the community association for economic and social

purposes. Due to their dispersed location in the forest, it is of utmost economic importance to

access the market through the association. Government incentives for extractivism require

association membership to access the subsidized prices for rubber.

Comparing the two sites, it appears that association membership is similar, at least in

more recent data. The same holds for credit, and again this may reflect a convergence in more

recent data. Retirement income appears slightly more important in Uruará, at least for the earlier

dates of the surveys. Those characteristics seem to illustrate interesting historical and cultural

perspectives. While in Uruará colonists have more social benefits, the rubber tappers from

Xapuri, on the other hand, are more marginalized and isolated in the forest and depend more on

social institutions to access government benefits. This helps to explain why the data show strong

social organization among the extractivists. The lack of basic citizenships benefits of the CMER

extractivist population has been a major concern for the Forest Government, which highlights the

social component of the local and regional development paradigm, “Florestania,” or forest

citizenship (GovernmentofAcre 2005).

92

Finally, we compare the two sites in terms of market access. By market access we refer to

distance to the nearest town; in Uruará that is the town of Uruará, and in the CMER, it is usually

Xapuri but in some cases Brasiléia or Assis Brasil. Market distance allows a proxy appraisal of

the costs of transport to market (Caldas et al. 2007), and thus the feasibility of commercializing

cattle and other products. In Uruará (Table 3-3) the panel appears selective of properties closer to

town for 1996, but a comparison of the panel cases with 2002 indicates a slight increase in

market distance. This is due to acquisition of new lots somewhat farther from town, a strategy for

expanding production systems fostered by unofficial road extensions (Perz et al. 2007). In

Xapuri (Table 3-4), we observe a minor increase in market distance when comparing full

samples from 2000 and 2004/2005. This increase is due to households from one seringal in the

2004/2005 sample, Icuriã, having a much greater distance to market than other households in the

sample, with a distance of about 80 kilometers of road to access the closest city, Assis Brasil. As

a result of the geographically-dispersed characteristics of extractivist households, they depend on

multiple means of transportation, usually by animal from the homestead to the association

nucleus with access to road, and then by truck to access markets in the city. Such difficulties for

selling forest products influences households’ experimentation in new land uses, such as cattle

ranching, which offers advantages in marketing access.6

In brief, a socioeconomic comparison of colonist households in Uruará to forest

homesteads in the CMER reveals several similarities, such as family size and association

6 For the 2000 data, household distance to market was calculated by adding the time spent on transportation by animal from each colocação to a central point (association nucleus) with road access and distance from the association nucleus to nearest town. Both distances were measured in time traveled, with subsequent conversion to kilometers. Time on trails from each colocação to association nucleus was transformed considering 1 hour animal transport = 5km; time from association nucleus to town was transformed considering 1 hour in truck = 40 km. For the 2004/2005 data set, distance from the colocação to the association nucleus was calculated in km using UTM coordinates collected with a GPS unit. From this point to the nearest town, distance was measured in km using our car odometer and/or GPS unit.

93

membership. However, there are also many differences, which largely follow expectations based

on the distinct historical contexts in the two locations. Given these differences, we turn to a

comparative analysis of natural resource management in the two places, focusing on cattle

ranching.

Comparisons of Natural Resource Management

Table 3-5 presents indicators of natural resource management for households in Uruará,

and Table 3-6 does the same for the CMER samples. In both, we first present data on land use:

total area claimed, and land under primary forest, crops, pasture, and secondary vegetation. All

land use data are based on areas reported by respondents. In Uruará (Table 3-5), the panel in

1996 shows larger properties than for the full sample, an indication of some selectivity of

households with more lots. But in both, primary forest covered roughly 60% of properties in

1996, and of the remaining area, the largest land use category is pasture for cattle production,

which averaged roughly 30 ha. By 2002, property sizes, forest cover, and cropland in the panel

had not changed significantly, but pasture area and secondary growth had both risen

significantly. In the CMER (Table 3-6), homesteads claimed much larger areas, a reflection of

the extensive nature of forest extractivism, where rubber tappers originally extracted from trees

along 4-6 trails, each covering roughly 100 ha (e.g., Gomes 2001). A comparison of panels to

full samples indicates (as in Uruará) some selectivity of larger homesteads. CMER homesteads

in the panel did not exhibit significant changes over time in total area, forest cover, or cropland.

Interestingly, the apparent rise in pasture area was not statistically significant, though there was a

rise in secondary growth.7 These dynamics in the panel are not as pronounced as in the Uruará

7 The results for secondary growth in the CMER may be an artifact of differences in the data. We estimated secondary growth for 2000, based on the area under cropland and assumptions about cultivation time (3 years) relative to fallowing durations (8 years), derived from observations by the first and third authors during fieldwork

94

panel, and caution is necessary about pasture expansion based on the CMER panel, though the

full samples for 2000 and 2004 provide some additional though limited support for this

interpretation.

Tables 3-5 and 3-6 also present indicators of forest extractivism, annual and perennial crop

production, and cattle. In Uruará (Table 3-5), there is minimal extractivism, and never rubber

extraction. On the other hand, despite some selectivity in the panel for larger production systems,

there is considerable annual crop production (as indicated by rice and beans) as well as

production of perennial crop commodities (indicated by cacao, coffee, and black pepper). From

1996 to 2002, according to the panel, rice production declined significantly, though bean

production did not. But there were also significant declines in coffee and especially black pepper,

though not in cocoa. Conversely, cattle herds rose significantly from 1996 to 2002, among cattle

on a household’s own properties as well as in terms of cattle grazing on other properties. Overall,

the average cattle herd per property in the Uruará panel more than doubled, from roughly 33

heads in 1996 to 80 in 2002.

In the CMER (Table 3-6), forest extractivism is very important. There are differences

between the full samples and panel and the resulting trends run in the opposite directions, so we

emphasize the panel when making temporal comparisons. In brief, Brazil nut extraction8 rose

while rubber declined, but neither change was statistically significant. Interestingly, extraction of

both Brazil nut and rubber continued as of 2004/2005. Production of annuals also exhibits a

and from contacts with knowledgeable informants who have conducted extension work in the CMER. Data on secondary vegetation for 2004/2005 are areas reported by respondents.

8 Note that brazil nut extraction is typically measured in “latas.” We follow Wadt, et al. Wadt, L. H. O., Kainer, K. A. & Gomes-Silva, D. A. P. 2005 Population structure and nut yield of a Bertholletia excelsa stand in Southwestern Amazonia. Forest Ecology and Management 211, 371-384. in converting latas to kg by assuming 11 kg per lata.

95

Table 3-5. Natural resource management, farm households in Uruará, Pará Uruará 1996 1 Uruará 1996 Uruará 2002 p(t-test), Full Sample Panel Sample Panel Sample 1996-2002 Land use (ha) Total Area Claimed 133.44 (83.03) 3 151.37 (98.41) 151.78 (119.35) 0.85 Primary Forest 86.10 (67.49) 95.18 (82.07) 84.11 (63.92) 0.25 Annual, Perennial Crops 8.85 (8.80) 10.51 (9.11) 10.34 (13.30) 0.90 Cattle Pasture 29.48 (27.06) 34.79 (26.75) 46.92 (76.44) 0.02 Secondary Vegetation 9.02 (11.04) 10.89 (13.72) 16.50 (21.52) <0.01 Forest Extractivism (kg) Brazil Nut NI NI 5.58 (29.43) N/A Rubber 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 1.00 Annual Crops (kg) Rice 3007.92 (3669.43) 3326.02 (4140.03) 1159.42 (2131.41) <0.01 Beans 284.83 (481.32) 264.69 (441.08) 184.96 (619.69) 0.32 Perennial Crops (kg) Cocoa 816.59 (2537.62) 1196.55 (3212.84) 1147.05 (3757.70) 0.85 Coffee 394.63 (1304.90) 560.75 (1691.10) 524.89 (1657.41) 0.01 Black Pepper 658.40 (1241.93) 973.25 (1507.91) 366.93 (748.23) <0.01 Cattle (heads) On Own Property 23.52 (38.30) 28.68 (32.33) 68.56 (150.04) <0.01 On Other Properties 2.49 (8.04) 3.40 (10.14) 12.49 (48.99) 0.02 Notes. 1. The full Uruará sample contains 261 households and 347 lots; the Uruará panel contains 143 households with 170 lots in 1996 and 221 lots in 2002. 2. Values shown are either proportions (for binomial variables) or arithmetic means (for continuous variables). Values in parentheses are standard deviations.

96

Table 3-6. Natural resource management, seringal households in the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve, Acre CMER 2000 CMER 2000 CMER 2004/5 CMER 2004/5 p(t-test), p(t-test), Full Sample 1 Panel Sample Panel Sample Full Sample 2000-2004 Uruará Land use (ha) Total Area Claimed 566.67 (319.29) 2 633.33 (360.16) 634.29 (335.14) 491.89 (459.89) 0.99 <0.01 Primary Forest 551.21 (318.04) 3 616.80 (357.62) 612.41 (330.71) 469.09 (458.71) 0.87 <0.01 Annual, Perennial Crops 2.28 (1.59) 2.35 (1.78) 1.83 (0.99) 2.26 (1.60) 0.14 <0.01 Cattle Pasture 7.10 (10.06) 7.93 (9.96) 9.17 (7.48) 8.80 (7.62) 0.55 <0.01 Secondary Vegetation 6.08 (4.23) 6.26 (4.76) 11.19 (8.88) 12.04 (16.85) <0.01 0.05 Forest Extractivism (kg) Brazil Nut 2499.67 (3134.72) 2070.44 (2732.79) 2441.06 (2665.33) 1686.25 (2680.94) 0.56 <0.01 Rubber 268.61 (418.36) 250.56 (378.43) 200.60 (312.91) 142.68 (269.91) 0.55 <0.01 Annual Crops (kg) Rice 1248.79 (1342.09) 1378.33 (1687.85) 948.00 (832.86) 937.78 (664.75) 0.18 0.24 Beans 495.61 (834.96) 554.44 (965.73) 537.14 (648.17) 393.21 (431.71) 0.93 <0.01 Perennial Crops (kg) Cocoa 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 1.00 <0.01 Coffee NI NI 49.03 (207.60) 45.11 (194.58) N/A <0.01 Black Pepper 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 1.00 <0.01 Cattle (heads) On Own Property 8.35 (10.32) 10.50 (12.10) 16.57 (17.48) 14.20 (17.57) 0.09 <0.01 On Other Property NI NI 1.71 (5.62) 1.27 (3.70) N/A <0.01 Notes. 1. The CMER panel contains 35 households, each with one colocação. The full CMER sample in 1999 includes 66 households, and the full sample in 2004 includes 149 households, each with one colocação. 2. Values shown are arithmetic means. Numbers in parentheses are standard deviations. 3. Values for primary and secondary forest in 1999 are estimates based on swidden area and assumptions about fallowing practices.

97

somewhat mixed picture, with rice in decline (though not significantly, at least in the panel) and

beans holding steady. Cocoa, coffee, and black peppers are of little importance in the CMER,

and this did not change after 2000. Cattle, on the other hand, rose in importance over time

(though this was of marginal significance in the panel, a similar change appears if we compare

the full samples for the two time points), and in 2004, we have evidence of households running

cattle on other homesteads, a indication of rubber tapper’s awareness regarding land-use

regulations and the political repercussions of increasing cattle stocks in their homesteads. As

their cattle stocks increase and there is a greater need to increase pasture land in the homesteads,

some rubber tappers prefer to not increase their pasture land, which can lead to substantial fines,

and instead transfer part of their stock to other homesteads, usually occupied by a family relative

who may have pasture land but little cattle.

Overall, resource management in the two sites was very different, as indicated by

significant differences in the most recent data sets. In Uruará, annual and perennial crops are

relatively more important, while in the CMER, forest extractivism is much more important.

While cattle ranching appears more important in Uruará than in the CMER, whether measured in

terms of pasture area or cattle herds, in both sites, we find ranching in expansion, and at a faster

rate than other productive activities involving natural resource management. Whereas pasture

area in both sites rose by 20-30% over roughly five years, cattle herds increased faster, from 60-

200%.

Comparisons of Pasture and Cattle Management

The first part of our analysis documented a rise in cattle herds in the municipalities most

closely tied to our study sites (Table 3-2 and Figures 3-2 and 3-3); the second part provided

additional data specifically for colonist and forest extractivist households, and documented

98

pasture expansion as well as growing cattle herds (Tables 3-5 and 3-6). The third and final part

of the analysis now focuses on practices related to pasture and cattle management, in order to

provide more insight into the processes at work and gain some inkling of the prospects for cattle

ranching among these small-scale producers. We focus on the most recent survey data from the

two sites, which refer to the 2002 panel in Uruará and the full sample for 2004/2005 in the

CMER.

Table 3-7 presents a comparison of pasture and cattle management indicators, broken

down into six groups: general, inputs and practices, cattle herd composition, purchases and sales

of cattle, along with site-specific indicators for compliance with deforestation rules (in the

CMER) and future planning (in Uruará). Our general indicators are simply whether a household

had cattle, and (for the CMER only) the time since first acquisition of cattle. The data indicate

widespread adoption of cattle, in fact slightly greater in the CMER than among colonists in

Uruará, though the difference is insignificant. The onset of cattle acquisition in the CMER is

about 7-8 years before the 2004/2005 survey, recent compared to the average length of residence,

which was roughly 14 years (Table 3-4), suggesting again that ranching is a relatively recent

activity among residents.

Technological inputs and management practices in Uruará and Xapuri reveal some key

characteristics about ranching among these subpopulations. For one thing, there is somewhat

limited capitalization, measured here in terms of whether a household owned a chainsaw.

Roughly half did in Uruará, whereas only about one-third did in the CMER. Significant

differences also appear for investments in enclosed pastures: households in Uruará had far more

fencing than those in the CMER, and roughly half of households in Uruará had corrals while

99

Table 3-7. Cattle and pasture management, farm households in Uruará, Pará, and seringal households in the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve, Acre

Uruará 2002 CMER 2004/2005 p(t-test), Panel Sample 1 Full Sample Site Comparison Cattle Raising (0=No, 1=Yes) 0.83 (0.37) 2 0.87 (0.34) 0.29 Cattle Onset (Years Ago) NI 7.46 (7.54) N/A Inputs and Practices Chainsaw (0=No, 1=Yes) 0.53 (0.50) 0.34 (0.47) <0.01 Fencing (km) 39.92 (105.35) 0.25 (0.56) <0.01 Corral (0=No, 1=Yes) 0.49 (0.50) 0.29 (0.46) <0.01 Fire Maintenance (0=No, 1=Yes) 0.50 (0.50) 0.73 (0.44) <0.01 Pasture Planting (0=No, 1=Yes) 0.80 (0.40) 0.92 (0.27) <0.01 Pasture Fertilizers (0=No, 1=Yes) 0.04 (0.19) NI N/A Vaccinations (0=No, 1=Yes) 0.82 (0.39) 0.78 (0.42) 0.35 Mineral Salt (0=No, 1=Yes) 0.81 (0.39) NI N/A Cattle Herd Composition (Heads) Bulls NI 0.62 (0.67) N/A Cows NI 5.57 (7.59) N/A Calves NI 8.01 (10.24) N/A Total (Own Property Only) 67.56 (150.04) 14.20 (17.57) <0.01 Purchases and Sales, Previous Year (Heads) Total Cattle Purchased NI 0.64 (1.70) N/A Bulls Sold 10.38 (71.68) 0.19 (0.60) 0.10 Cows Sold 4.81 (14.72) 0.45 (1.32) <0.01 Calves Sold 28.42 (151.96) 2.17 (3.99) 0.04 Total Cattle Sold 43.62 (168.30) 2.84 (4.77) <0.01 Deforestation Rules Agree with 10% Deforestation Rule (0=No, 1=Yes) N/A 0.81 (0.39) N/A Agree with 5% Pasture Rule (0=No, 1=Yes) N/A 0.62 (0.49) N/A Future Planning Plans for Pasture (0=Other, 1=Expand) 0.59 (0.49) NI N/A Plans for Cattle (0=Other, 1=Expand) 0.77 (0.42) NI N/A 1. The Uruará panel in 2002 includes 143 households with 221 lots; the Chico Mendes full sample in 2004 includes 149 households, each with one colocação. 2. Values shown are either proportions (for binomial variables) or arithmetic means (for continuous variables). Values in parentheses are standard deviations.

100

about 30% did in the CMER. The greater degree of capitalization in Uruará reflects the

somewhat more established state of ranching among colonists (more pasture area, more cattle,

etc.). That said, differences do not appear as great for management practices. More households

relied on fire for pasture maintenance in the CMER than in Uruará, but pasture planting

(roçagem) was common in both places, and the use of fertilizers for pasture maintenance was

rare in Uruará and unknown in the CMER. In addition, the use of cattle vaccinations was

virtually the same among households in the two locations, and the use of mineral salts (in

Uruará, at least) occurred on a comparable frequency as vaccinations.The high proportions for

use of vaccinations is likely a result of government efforts to eradicate hoof-and-mouth disease

in the Amazon (Smeraldi & May 2008). The picture that emerges here is one where

capitalization is related to the scale of ranching activities (i.e., chainsaws are more common in

Uruará, where pastures and herds are larger), while the use of specific management practices

among these distinct groups does not appear to vary as much, in part due to co-occurrence in the

same national context as concerns beef production.

Table 3-7 also presents data on cattle herd composition. Unfortunately, this was

documented more systematically in the CMER than Uruará. That said, herd composition in the

CMER and that anecdotally observed in Uruará appear fairly typical of breeding systems for beef

that are constituted by herds with a few bulls, many cows and numerous calves (Tourrand &

Veiga 2003; Veiga et al. 2004). There is considerable variability in herd size among households

in both of the sites, and in the CMER this also applies to each category in the herd.

More illuminating are the data for purchases and especially sales of cattle. Whereas we

have anecdotal evidence of considerable cattle purchasing in Uruará during the late 1990s (e.g.,

Toni 1999), data from the CMER suggest very limited acquisition of cattle via purchase (in the

101

year prior to the 2004/2005 survey). Similarly, whereas households in Uruará sold several bulls,

a few cows, and many calves, totaling roughly half the herd size, in the CMER, sales were a

relatively smaller proportion of the herd, especially for cows and calves. This suggests that cattle

ranching among small farm colonists in Uruará is very focused on breeding for sales, whereas

ranching in the CMER may be more focused on accumulation (where cattle is an investment)

than liquidation per se. This is also an indication that cattle in the CMER is undergoing an initial

stage of establishment having less economic importance for the household income composition

than in Uruará. Nevertheless, it represents a stage of evolution in which cattle are increasingly

gaining in economic importance in relation to the total annual income of a typical rubber tapper

householder. Cattle are sold mostly in critical moments of household decision-making, including

sickness of family members, housing improvements, equipment acquisition, to pay off a debt,

among others. These findings raise interesting questions about buyers of cattle in the two sites,

especially Uruará, where there is some indication that small-scale operations sell to buyers who

then sell to larger operations that fatten cattle for the slaughterhouse (Veiga et al. 2004). In the

CMER there are few “middlemen” operating inside the CMER, usually someone with

connections to larger-scale cattle ranches in the region that fatten cattle for the slaughterhouse,

like in Uruará. Middle-men offer advantages to rubber tappers, mainly freeing them of

responsibility to pay transportation costs, in addition to cash on receipt.

The last two sections of Table 3-7 deal with issues specific to the two sites. In the CMER,

a key issue concerning pasture formation for cattle ranching are the regulations limiting

deforestation (up to 10% of the area of the CMER) and pasture (up to 5% of the CMER). While

all available data indicate rising deforestation and expanding pasture areas in the CMER, a large

majority of respondents in 2004/2005 supported the 10% deforestation rule (Vadjunec 2007).

102

However, a somewhat smaller majority supported the 5% pasture rule. Remote sensing data for

the CMER (Vadjunec et al. nd) suggest that clearing (at least up until the late 1990s) had not yet

approached the 10% limit, but if pasture continues to expand as a proportion of the area cleared,

it was, in some instances, likely surpassing the 5% limit by the mid-2000s, which may help

explain the lower degree of support for the 5% pasture rule.

In Uruará, a key issue concerns the future of ranching as a livelihood option, given

problems with alternatives, access to special credit lines in the 1990s, and the rapid expansion of

ranching there since 2000 (e.g., Table 3-2). In the 1996 survey, roughly half of the households

interviewed (as well as half of the households re-interviewed and therefore included in the panel)

indicated an intent to expand their cattle herd (not shown in Table 3-7). In the 2002 survey, such

intentions had increased in frequency to 60-80%, especially for expanding cattle herds. This

suggests that liquidation may be proceeding alongside expansion in herd size.

Discussion

These results raise many questions about cattle ranching among colonist smallholders and

forest extractivists. Whereas ranching among colonists has already received attention (e.g.,

Walker et al. 2000; Tourrand and Veiga 2003), we focus here on interpreting the motives and

process for the expansion of cattle herds in the CMER, followed by a comparative analysis of the

processes at play in the Uruará colonization case.

Despite the ‘theoretical’ economic potential of NTFPs (e.g., Godoy et al. 1993; Grimes et

al. 1994; Peters et al. 1989), the traditional livelihood system of forest people in the region suffer

from limited options for extractivist diversification and development of value-added non-timber

forest products. Most initiatives involving NTFPs have run into market obstacles that limit their

economic benefit for local communities (e.g., Godoy 2000; Godoy et al. 1997). These profit-

reducing barriers include: absence of demand, great distance to markets, lack of efficient

103

marketing structures, weak social institutions, and poor development incentives. These activities

are increasingly abandoned once more rewarding alternatives become available and as increasing

pressure on household labor resources make these low-value, labor-intensive activities no longer

attractive. Given the difficulties securing markets for value-added extractivist products, forest

people find themselves ‘losing faith’ in extractivism where they fail to see economic gains. As a

result, forest residents have turned toward the short-term economic benefits of cattle raising.

It appears that decisions about cattle adoption among extractivists in the CMER reflect

the economic value of cattle, the ability to avoid transportation and market access difficulties,

and the lack of enforcement of restrictions on deforestation and pasture formation. Cattle are

considered a means of storing and accumulating wealth, enabling extractivists to sell when cash

is needed. This perpective is shared by an extractivist from the rubber estate Paraguaçu, who sees

his cattle as a life insurance policy for himself and his children: “Extractivists are investing in

cattle because it’s the easiest product to sell and it can guarantee security for the producers,

which you can’t get with extractivist or agricultural products. They don’t give you anywhere

close to the same price or market [demand].”

Ranching is an attractive economic opportunity for CMER communities because of the

easy market access for livestock. As the president of the Rural Workers’ Union of Assis Brasil

put it: “The Reserve didn’t present the opportunity for rubber tappers to extract more profit from

the forest. Cattle did, and they leave the forest on their own legs, so there are no problems with

transport…So a lot of people found that they could make a living through cattle.”

In addition, competing land tenure systems in the region influence forest extractivists’

decision for cattle raising activities. Much of the CMER is surrounded by large cattle ranches

and colonization projects with extensive pastures. Ranching is practically the sole activity

104

practiced in those neiboghboring areas, and forest extractivists perceive their neighbors

practicing ranching with access to transportation, electricity, and housing, among other material

goods, giving extra proof of the benefit of cattle for their economic well-being. Such perceptions,

and weak enforcement of forest clearing and pasture establishment restrictions in the CMER,

have thus also fostered adoption of cattle ranching there. As the president of the Rubber Tappers

Association in Brasiléia explained: “The rubber tapper has thought a lot about his quality of life.

They thought at first about their land that cattle ranchers were taking away from them. They

thought about the land, but not about rubber prices. The rubber tappers were seeing this happen

and seeing the condition they themselves were in - and what did they think? They thought about

cattle ranching. Why not? The cattle ranchers and colonists raise cattle outside the reserve, and

the rubber tappers who saw this began ranching, too. Thinking about it today, what makes the

extractivists’ deforest is the development of the reserve that never took off.”

While raising a small number of cattle has always been defended by extractivist

communities since cattle provide milk and transportation, herd size has steadily grown among

forest people. As one Rubber Tappers Association leader explained, “How was the idea of

raising cattle born for the extractivist? When everyone was engaged in tapping rubber and the

price was very low, a rubber tapper had to tap 15 kilos of rubber to buy a jug of milk (lata de

leite) in the city for his child. Everyone already has thoughts of keeping a few heads for milk and

transportation. They then start to feed on this idea and begin to like raising cattle. Herds start

becoming large, and the extractivist starts to dedicate himself to raising more cattle because of its

economic attractiveness.”

Pasture formation provides opportunities that do not necessary depend on cash surplus.

When a householder has pasture land available, capital constraints can be overcome to initiate

105

ranching by renting the land through informal contract to a neighboring householder with

growing herd size but limited pasture. A neighbor with an established cattle herd might also

place cattle under the care of another household who performs the work of a meeiro, one who

raises another’s cattle, and will be responsible for the feeding, maintenance and care of the

animals. Often these cattle are young females, which are mated with bulls, and the offspring are

divided equally between the cattle owner and the pasture landowner. In addition, initial ranching

might begin around family relations. For example, a newly married son is customarily granted a

few heads of cattle if the family householder head is engaged in the activity.

Cattle trade is a year-around activity providing sustained cash influx for the CMER

residents, although more intense during the dry season since transport is easier. Residents of the

CMER also know that when they need cash they can go to the city to sell their cattle at any time.

Another method that facilitates the cattle trade market all year around is through agreements that

middlemen have developed with some residents of the reserve, usually someone who owns a

larger cattle herd in specific areas. These residents buy cattle for the middlemen whenever a

neighbor puts them up for sale. The middlemen provide some advance cash for their purchases

and thereby dominate the market among householders. It is uncertain if forest extractivists will

continue to increase ranching in the extractive reserve, as its controversial aspects have not yet

been openly discussed among different actors of extractive reserve management. Although both

deforestation and small-scale cattle ranching are on the rise in the CMER, this does not mean

that traditional livelihoods systems offer no promise, as local governmental agendas have

developed several experiments to strengthen the state extractivist economy.

Comparative Analysis

Regional market prices largely explain cattle adoption among smallholder colonists and

forest extractivists, despite their cultural differences and contrasting historical trajectories.

106

Whereas Uruará colonists were settled in the region with the opening of the Transamazon

Highway, forest extractivists in Xapuri were organizing against the very same policies of road

construction and agricultural land settlement for cattle ranching Nonetheless, roads have played

an important role connecting colonists as well as extractivists to local and regional markets,

which has motivated shifts toward products easily transported and marketed, such as beef.

While there are important contrasts in the productive activities and the economic

difficulties facing colonists in Uruará and extractivists in the CMER, they also found similar

economic opportunities involving cattle ranching. The cyclical adaptation among colonists is not

observed among forest extractivists, who practice subsistence agriculture, almost no perennial

crop production for marketing, and have managed to maintain their traditional production system

over the years. Cattle ranching nonetheless became an economically attractive livelihood option.

Forest extractivists faced an option: to be part of the economic process with a different level of

well-being in which forest products have a lesser role.

Such contrasts alongside the convergence around cattle ranching raise additional

comparative questions about prospective changes among colonists in places like Uruará and

extractivists such as those in the CMER. Smallholder colonists in Uruará have existed for three

decades and have seen many changes in land use practices and economic fortunes (Perz 2003).

With diversified market oriented land use practices, colonists have acquired important strategies

to respond to fluctuating regional markets. With continued improvement of market links,

agricultural technologies, and land consolidation, colonists tend to improve diversification with

mechanized agriculture and intensive cattle production. The cattle sector will continue to

increase in the regional economy, playing a larger role in the household economy. Land

consolidation is likely to benefit households that intensify cattle raising, and colonists will

107

gradually turn into larger land holders, with pasture for cattle as the predominant land use

(Aldrich, et al. 2006).

Government development policies in Acre are also encouraging the extractivist

population to diversify modes of production, locally called neo-extractivism, which refers to an

alternative vision of forest use and conservation that builds on the cultural, political, and

economic context of local people (Rego 1999). Neo-extractivism argues that to improve the

economic situation of extractivist families, alternative technologies that increase the marketing

return for traditional non-timber forest products need to be combined with the incorporation of

new extractive products. The government of Acre created a series of incentives for entrepreneurs

to establish sustainable logging activities and for community-based timber management

operations. Acre recently became the first state in Brazil to achieve Forest Stewardship Council

(FSC) certification in a community-managed forest, to improve their access to national and

international markets. Advocates of sustainable logging have argued that timber-management

can play an important role in income generation, slowing down cattle expansion in the CMER,

thereby rendering viable forest extractivism. However, the proposal for logging in the CMER has

generated a polemic debate among extractivists due to concerns about damage to the forest and

prohibitions on logging in the ERs. Furthermore, without proper management and monitoring,

logging is unlikely to be an sustainable alternative. Any alternative to cattle expansion in the

reserve has to build on a comprehensive understanding of the processes that have contributed to

it, including limitation of diversified extractivist production, and the short-term economic

benefits that cattle ranching provides. No single “solution” is likely to change this current

economic trend of forest extractivists’ economic development. There is an undercurrent of

political anxiety in policy-makers and rubber tapper leadership about the growth and uncertainty

108

of cattle ranching in ERs, reflected in the feeling of symbolic discontinuity that cattle ranching

represents for forest extractivism as a culture and the historical trajectory out of which it

developed. While ranching is a reality among the productive activities practiced in the CMER,

cattle has caused its own political controversy among the extractivist population. The debate over

diversified extractivism with forward linkages under the neo-extractivist concept is likely to limit

cattle expansion in Extractive Reserves over the long-run. But its current adoption shows

immediate needs to specify the ways in which diversified development approaches affect forest

conservation and the socio-economic well-being of communities in the region.

Conclusions

Showing similar trends regarding the growth of cattle raising in Xapuri and Uruara, the

results suggest a regional push toward cattle ranching expansion among colonist smallholders

and forest extractivists in the Brazilian Amazon. Cattle ranching among colonist and forest

extractivists are driven by market forces, but also have distinct political development contexts.

Smallholder colonists present a more diversified economy with greater market links in which

cattle ranching is consolidated as a economic practice, while forest extractivists, regardless of the

potential of forest products to improve local livelihoods, have more limited economies in which

cattle represent a viable option under an uncertain economy, and they have not yet confronted the

political and development controversies of cattle raising in Extractive Reserves.

Cattle ranching among forest extractivists in Xapuri is a challenge and may represent an

opportunity to promote a broader debate to review forest resources co-management pacts by

government institutions and grass-root organizations for Extractive Reserve administration in the

very place where it was negotiated twenty years ago.

109

CHAPTER 4 LAND-USE/LAND-COVER CHANGE AMONG RUBBER TAPPERS IN THE CHICO

MENDES EXTRACTIVE RESERVE, ACRE, BRAZIL

Introduction

Tropical deforestation is arguably the most significant type of land-use/cover change

(henceforth, land change) underway globally, given its multi-scalar and -dimensional elements

affecting a wide range of ecosystem services from landscape-level precipitation, to river basin

hydrology, and to the functioning of the Earth system, including global climate change (Myers

2000, Watson et al. 2000, Steffen et al. 2004, Bunker et al. 2005, Lambin and Geist 2006). No

region of tropical deforestation has drawn more concern than the Amazon basin, especially the

Brazilian Amazon. The Amazon remains a hotspot for tropical deforestation (Achard et al. 2002;

Asner et al. 2005) with profound, documented impacts on a full range of ecosystem to earth

system concerns (Nobre et al. 1991, Salati and Nobre 1991, Gash et al. 1996, Laurence et al.

2000; 2002, Ferraz et al. 2003, Houghton et al. 2005). Deforestation follows the expansion of

the logging and agricultural frontier, both increasingly driven by global markets (Faminow 1998,

Mertens et al. 2001), while traditional people struggle over access to land and resources

(Schmink and Wood 1992). Pan-Amazon and especially Brazilian policies, therefore, have the

challenge of balancing environmental concerns with land reform while ensuring economic

growth and development (Hecht and Cockburn 1990, Smith 2001, Kainer et al. 2003).

The Brazilian Extractive Reserve System (ER) is one form of land use and entitlement

seeking this balance. Threatened by cattle ranching and large-scale agricultural projects,

traditional extractivists in the region—those who live mainly off of the extraction of non-timber

forest products (NTFPs) such as rubber, Brazil nuts and hearts-of-palm — have fought for the

legal recognition of their land rights. The ER was born out of the increasingly recognized need

for sustainable development (WCED 1987, IUCN 1995), within the context of economic and

110

social justice, particularly for Chico Mendes and the Rubber Tappers Union (CNS 1985). Under

this system the government holds the title to the land, while extractivist associations hold

concessions to its use. The ER, therefore, has two complementary goals: (1) the conservation of

important ecosystems, such as forests, and (2) the preservation of traditional extractive

economies and cultures through sustainable development (MMA 2004).

Since its creation in 1990, ER has been championed by many as a win-win (sustainable

development) model in which reserve residents conserve the forest in a form of sustainable use,

which is expected to lead to economic growth and improved well-being (Murrieta and Rueda

1995). ER thus joins a litany of efforts worldwide to use “working preserves or parks” to

maintain forest cover and ecosystem integrity through maintenance of “traditional” uses (Alcorn

1992, Gomez-Pompa and Kaus 1992, Terborgh and Van Schaik 2002, Tucker 2004, Zarin 2004).

Recognizing that many forest lands are co-evolved landscapes (Alcorn and Lynch 1992, Clement

et al. 2003), the win-win character of these efforts, especially regarding the material

development of the peoples involved, remains an open question, with critics of parks citing

problems of corruption, bureaucracy, political instability and the further marginalization of the

poor, among others (Terborgh and Peres 2002, Van Schaik 2002, Van Schaik and Rijksen 2002).

This concern is muted by some advocates of the ER who, in their attempt to legitimize the

rubber-tappers movement and alternative forms of development, may have overly romanticized

both the rubber tappers and the main objectives of the extractive reserve model. Since his

assassination in 1988, rubber tapper leader, Chico Mendes has himself reached almost mythic

proportions, being described as an “ecologist,” a “rain-forest Gandhi,” an “eco-martyr,” and one

of the “50 most important environmental thinkers in history” (Gale 1998, Palmer 2002, Maxwell

2003, Revkin 2004). To others, he was a hard-hitting communist party labor leader and a

111

“radical political militant” (Hecht and Cockburn 1990, Maxwell 2003). Such extreme

descriptions are not limited to Chico Mendes but to the rubber tappers themselves, and even to

descriptions regarding the sustainability of the ER model.

A polemicized debate concerning the sustainability of the ER model has emerged with

little common ground between advocates and critics. Proponents argue that ERs serve to lower

deforestation rates, protect biodiversity and ecosystem integrity, and as buffers preventing or

inhibiting land-cover destruction by fire, while preserving the culture and ensuring the economic

livelihood of traditional forest-dwelling people (Allegretti and Schwartzman 1989, Anderson

1990, Hall 1997, Nepstad et al. 2006). Brazilian environmental policy makers,

environmentalists, and the National Council of Rubber Tappers (CNS), often backed by financial

support from the international community, have favored this type of “green” development and

press for the creation of ERs and other conservation units to cover 10 % of the Brazilian

Amazon, an estimated 500,000 square kilometers, or roughly the size of Spain.1 By February

2008, 39 federal Extractive Reserves, and 25 state Extractive Reserves, covering an area of over

12 million hectares, had already been created in the Brazilian Amazon.

Critics question the reserves in terms of their economic, social, and environmental

sustainability (Fearnside 1989, Browder 1992). Specifically, the reserves have been criticized on

issues of biodiversity—that extractivists and extractive activities may have a negative, predatory

affect on both flora (Moegenburg and Levey 2002) and fauna (Peres 2005). Furthermore, some

economists suggest that, historically, extractivism has not been able to alleviate poverty, and this

exclusive kind of economy will eventually disappear, as economically valuable forest products

1 Increasingly, the concept of extractive reserves is expanding, being applied to a diverse range of ecological and social contexts outside of Amazonia, including non-rainforest environments, such as marine areas on the Atlantic coast of Brazil, and increasingly in savanna ecosystems where soy-bean expansion threatens both local environments and traditional populations (Theulen 2006).

112

inevitably end up being grown on plantations, at less cost and of higher quality (Homma 1989,

Browder 1990, Homma 1994).

Much of this debate is theoretical in nature, lacking systematically collected socio-

economic data collected on ERs. More recent studies in the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve

(CMER) have tried to ground these arguments by focusing on field-based data collection and

analysis of both livelihood trajectories and the ecological impacts of such livelihood decisions by

residents of the CMER (Sassagawa1999, Gomes 2001, Wallace 2004, Eringhaus 2005, Vadjunec

2007).

A deeper understanding of this debate, aided by the results of research being carried out in

the CMER, is increasingly important because criticisms surrounding the ER system have been

re-ignited. In August 2005, runaway fires ravaged the CMER for three weeks before they could

be contained. The fact that it was the rubber tappers themselves who accidentally started the

fires outraged much of the public, sparking tensions by some regarding the legitimacy of the

entire ER model. As a result, the reserve’s ability to perform as a conservation unit is currently

under fire in the Brazilian national press, with a few critics accusing many ER parks as a

“conservation lie”, grounded in “pseudo science”, and offering as ‘proof’ examples of (non-

Federal, non-ER) state-run ERs in Rondônia, where between 60-100 % of forest cover has

already been lost (Brito 2005b).2

The CMER has witnessed a substantial growth in pasture and small-scale cattle ranching

triggering deforestation in some areas (Gomes 2001), although the scale of deforestation is low

compared to the surrounding region. A three percent total forest-cover loss between 1986 and

2 While we recognize that state-run extractive reserves in Rondônia are currently undergoing extreme land-use pressures (Euler et al. 2008), we argue that they should be considered an exception, not the norm, and addressed separately from the ER system.

113

1999 was recorded in the reserve by two remote sensing analyses (CNPT 1999), one of which

suggests that some communities in the CMER are close to reaching their allowable limits of

deforestation and would reach them by 2003 (Sassagawa 1999). While variation among rubber

tapper communities is addressed in this last assessment, less attention has been given to

explaining the reasons why such variation exists (Gomes 2001) and virtually no attention has

been given to assessments of deforestation as associated with the variation in community

livelihoods in the CMER. In fact, considerable variation in community economies has emerged

in the reserve, with some communities focused more on extractivist activities and others more on

agriculture and cattle rearing.

This paper compares deforestation in the communities in the CMER with their diverse

livelihoods practices. This exercise is important because it helps to illuminate the relative

impacts on forest conservation and household income of different human-environment

conditions existing in the reserve, thus providing insights about the ideal conditions for

sustainability of the CMER considering its dual purposes of forest conservation and sustainable

development (economic growth and resident well-being). In order to explore this relationship, six

communities are examined in the CMER, four of which were projected to surpass their legal

deforestation limits by 2003. Using remote sensing and household surveys, this study asks the

following sub-questions:

(i) What are the land-use practices in the six communities and how are they changing?

(ii) What are the amounts and rates of deforestation and secondary regrowth within the six

communities between 1986-2003?

(iii) Have any of the six communities surpassed allowable deforestation limits within the

reserve, thus compromising the reserve’s role as a conservation unit?

114

Study Area

Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve

The CMER, located in southeastern Acre (also known as the Alto Acre Region), is the

most famous of all the ERs. It was created on March 12, 1990 by Federal decree, comprises

970,570 hectares, and is located approximately between latitude 10˚ 05’ 41’’ S and 11˚ 00’ 00’’

S and longitude 67˚ 56’10’’ W and 69˚ 48’22’’ W (Figure 4-1). Approximately 12,000 people

(about 2,000 households) live within 46 different seringais, or rubber tapper estates, within the

reserve (CNPT 1995). The BR-317 highway runs along the eastern and southern boundaries of the

reserve, connecting the capital of Rio Branco to Acre’s other major urban centers of Xapuri,

Brasiléia, and Assis Brasil, and connecting Brazil to both Peru and Bolivia. The more isolated

regions of the reserve can be accessed by the Acre, Xapuri and Iaco rivers.

The CMER is, for the most part (73%), an open tropical forest biome high in both palm

and bamboo species diversity with an average annual rainfall of 2,200 mm, a mean temperature

of 26˚ C, and a marked dry season (from May to August) where average temperatures climb to

about 38˚ C. The remaining 27 % of the reserve is classified as dense tropical forest, which can

mainly be found in the municipality of Brasiléia (CNPT 1999). This type of forest is often richer

than open tropical forests in many key extractive species, such as açai and the Brazil-nut tree,

thus providing some communities with inherently greater extractive potential. Topography of the

region is slowly undulating, or “hilly,” and elevation varies between 100-300 m. In general, the

reserve is dominated by a mix of mainly eutrophic and dystrophic soils, which, according to state

authorities, provides workable soils and marked agricultural potential with the adoption of proper

management practices (GovernmentofAcre 2000a).

Although the reserve’s title is held collectively by the reserve’s associations, individual

resource parcels are given to each household, based on a traditional land-use system known as

115

Figure 4-1. Study area:and study sites within the CMER: (1) Icuriã, (2) São Francisco, (3) Paraguaçu, (4) Humaitá, (5) Porongaba, (6) Filipinas

the “colocação,” where the emphasis is on resources in the parcels, not on the land itself. A

typical colocação contains the rubber tapper’s house and other farm buildings, water well or

small creek, patio garden, fruit orchard, agricultural plot, and pasture, if any. Historically, the

most important asset in a colocação is the number of “estradas de seringa,” or rubber trails, held

by each household. A household does not hold de jure title to the land, but instead possesses the

right to use the resources found within the colocação and rubber trails (mainly Brazil nut and

rubber trees, historically holding the most value).

At the reserve’s creation, each rubber tapper was guaranteed at least three rubber trails,

which is estimated to be roughly equivalent to 300 ha, although some families have more or less

after trading, buying, or dividing up properties. In most seringais there is no communal forest as

in a traditional common property regime; all forest is claimed by some household or another.

116

The Utilization Plan (PU) for the CMER, which was made by the rubber tappers themselves, sets

the allowable deforestation limits at 10 % of the colocação, or theoretically 30 ha, with 5 % (or

15 ha) allowed for pasture conversion. The nature of the colocação makes it difficult to map as

rubber trails often intersect and overlap. It is important to note that households do not have

traditional geometrical plots that are easily mapped and bounded. Furthermore, the CMER is a

common property system where enforcement and regulation occurs mainly through the social

organization at the community level. As a result, most monitoring of the 10 and 5 % rules occurs

at the community level, instead of the household level, if at all (Sassagawa 1999, Gomes 2001,

Ankersen and Barnes 2004). Recently, the efficacy of the reserve has been questioned due to the

expansion of small-scale cattle ranching within the reserve (Gomes 2001). In order to

understand the controversy surrounding this recent land-use and livelihood change, it is

important to look to the past. In the next section, we discuss the history of rubber in Acre,

resulting in the CMER today, and the changes in land-use currently underway.

Land Use History and Livelihood Trajectories Among Rubber Tappers in Acre

Starting with the rubber boom of the late 19th century, the state of Acre has had a long and

varied history of rubber tapping and latex production (Barnham and Coomes 1996). By the late

1880s, the rubber trade was so economically important to the local, regional, and global

economies that, accordingly (Hecht and Cockburn 1990: 80, Stokes 2000: 232), Acre was

claimed to be one of the most valuable and important pieces of commercial real estate on earth,

where at its peak in 1912 was exporting approximately 1,200 tons a year to French, Belgian,

British and American firms (Coêlho 1982: 68).

This booming economy required many workers in a place where populations were sparse,

the landscape was unforgiving, and the labor supply scarce. As a result, the peasant poor from

the drought-stricken areas of the Brazilian Northeast were encouraged by the Brazilian

117

government to migrate into the rubber territories of the Amazon. In the drought of 1877 alone,

an estimated 100,000 North-easterners migrated into the Amazon region (Hecht and Cockburn

1990: 80). The rubber barons supplied the rubber tappers with trade goods, food, work supplies

and even the cost of their passage on credit, thus keeping the tapper indebted to continue tapping

rubber for a relatively low price. Rubber tappers were regularly discouraged and even banned

from practicing agriculture in their colocação, resulting in both the protection of precious extractive

species and historically low deforestation rates, while keeping the tappers dependent on the rubber

barons and middle-men who delivered supplies.

The first rubber bust occurred in 1915 with the development of the Southeast Asian

rubber plantations, when rubber exports for the whole of Amazonia fell to just under 30,000 tons

annually (Coêlho 1982: 70). Not only was the cost of rubber production lower in Asia; Asian

plantations also received a better price for a higher quality product, thus making it difficult for

Brazilian-based firms to compete. By 1932 the market all but bottomed out, with the whole of

Amazonia producing less than 5,000 tons of rubber annually (Dean 1987: 169).

The second and short-lived rubber boom came with the advent of the Second World War,

and an urgent need for latex among the United States and its allies (Corrêa 1967; Martinello

1998). The Brazilian government was called upon to triple its latex production, creating the

“Rubber Reserve” and calling for “soldados de borracha,” or rubber soldiers, to fulfill their

patriotic duties, offering up promises of a soldier’s respect as well as a pension (only recently

realized) in return for their rubber tapping services. By 1947, the US and Brazilian governments

had pulled funding for the “Rubber Reserve,” and once again, the Amazonian rubber economy

went bust, causing many rubber barons to abandon their rubber estates, leaving rubber tappers to

fend for themselves.

118

While many rubber tappers fled to Acre’s urban centers, many tappers stayed in the

abandoned rubber estates supplying local and regional markets with latex (otherwise banned for

importing into Brazil) and engaging in hunting, Brazil-nut collecting, and subsistence farming.

The rubber tappers were left alone until the 1970s when the military government officially

“opened” the Brazilian Amazon for development. In Acre, this new development policy often

led to violent land conflicts between rubber tappers and cattle ranchers, where rubber tappers

were evicted and former rubber estates were cleared by cattle ranchers. It was under the context

of such conflicts, along with increasing environmental concerns, that both the CMER and the

entire ER system were created (Allegretti 2002).

According to a reserve-wide study completed immediately following the reserve’s

creation, rubber was the main source of income for residents of the reserve, representing 44.7 %

of the total household income, while 24.6 % of the household income came from Brazil-nut

collection (in other words, almost 70 % of a household’s income was derived from NTFP

extraction) (Feitosa 1995: 70, see also CNS 1992). Agricultural production represented 21 % of

the household income, while small animal breeding and cattle rearing represented 4.8 and 4.2 %

of the total income respectively (Feitosa 1995: 70). At this time, not only was rubber production

the most important economic activity, the CMER produced more rubber than any other

extractive reserve, producing on average 714 kg of rubber per family per year (Feitosa 1995: 70).

Ironically, in the mid-1990s, just as the rubber tappers themselves were gaining the long

overdue recognition they deserved, and as the CMER was being formalized, Brazilian policies

ended the forced import bans and national subsidies placed on rubber. The rubber tappers finally

gained land security, but at the same time lost many of the protections and incentives placed on

their main source of livelihood. They also, during this time, gained autonomy to make their own

119

land-use decisions. As a result, many rubber tappers have abandoned latex production altogether

and are increasingly drawn to small-scale agriculture, animal husbandry, and even cattle

production, resulting in the deforestation of concern within the CMER.

With the creation of the reserve came the long overdue recognition and inclusion of

rubber tappers in Amazonian development policy. On the one hand, rubber tappers are faced

with long-term market challenges regarding latex production and other NTFPs. On the other

hand, with the creation of the reserve, they also have increased road access and therefore

opportunities to participate in more diverse markets. The dominant market opportunities

available in Acre, despite the attempts of the pro-forest government to build a sound sustainable

development policy, unfortunately, are often not based on sustainable strategies, but instead are

influenced by local and regional economies operating outside of the reserve, which privilege

cattle, and to a lesser extent, agriculture, over rubber and NTFPs. Overall, cattle ranching is now

one of the most important economic activities in Acre and contributes more than 60% of the state

tax revenue (Valentim et al. 2002). Furthermore, recent studies suggest that smallholders are

responsible for roughly 62 percent of the new deforestation in Acre (Barreto et al. 2006).

Activities of large-holders are increasingly constrained by the large amount of protected areas

in the region. This constraint, however, provides new opportunities for historically neglected

smallholders to participate in these new market economies. As a result, extractivists are increasingly

turning to more intensive land uses, such as market agriculture and cattle raising.

This brief overview of land use trajectories among the rubber tapper population points

out the reality that the political economic conditions under which the original rubber tapper land

holdings and economic livelihood orientations were established may no longer exist. Many of

the rules and regulations applied to their seringais remain, however, based on the assumption

120

that the extractive reserve model can improve resident well-being while protecting the majority

of the forested area—the win-win solution.

Methods

Site Selection

Research was carried out in a total of six rubber estates within the two municipalities of

Assis Brasil and Brasiléia (three estates each) of the reserve (Figure 4-2). The base characteristics

of each rubber estate are provided in Table 4-1.

Figure 4-2. Location of the study communities within the CMER: (1) Icuriã, (2) São Francisco,

(3) Paraguaçu, (4) Humaitá, (5) Porongaba, (6) Filipinas

Communities were chosen with the help of the municipal level reserve associations based

on the following criteria:

(i) Rubber estates were open and inviting to outside research. This was an important factor

as the reserve is considered Federal property and outside research requires an invitation from the

121

communities and a research license from the National Centre for the Sustainable Development of

Traditional Populations (CNPT).

(ii) Among those rubber estates chosen by the associations, estates were stratified based

on perceptions of the reserve leaders on traditional extractive orientation versus non-traditional

market orientations.

Table 4-1. Characteristics of the study sites Brasiléia Assis Brasil

Filipinas (6)

Porongaba (5)

Humaitá (4)

Paraguaçu (3)

São Francisco (2)

Icuriã (1)

Estimated No. households

72

26

32

40

73

72

No. households surveyed

26 17 19 20 19 29

Ave. family size 6.96 4.82 5.56 8.15 5.15 4.61 Av. holding size (ha) 608.00 429.00 432.00 560.00 416.00 300.00 Total Area Seringal (ha)

29.908 8,937 14,487 19,511 29,933 64,405

Forest canopy type Dense Dense Dense Dense/Open Open Open Impact by division of watershed?

No No No No No Yes

Main form of transport Road Road Road Road Road Water/ Road

Distance from community base to nearest urban center

36 km

23 km

30 km

10 km

22 km

75 km

Livelihood Emphasis NTFP Cattle/NTFP Cattle/NTFP

Cattle/Ag NTFP/Ag Cattle/Ag

Remote Sensing Analysis

Our remote sensing analysis follows from a collaboration between researchers with

different research objectives and, in one case, study sites. Therefore, satellite image analysis was

carried out on the footprint level for the Alto Acre region (10 scenes). LANDSAT TM and

ETM+ images were obtained for 1986, 1992, 1996, 1999, and 2003 for Path/Row 02/67 and

03/67 (Image Source: Tropical Rain Forest Information Center of Michigan State University).

Chronic cloud and haze problems common to the region required that the image synchronization

match the short dry season, between mid-June and early September, rather than more narrowly

122

circumscribed dates. We started our time series in 1986 in order to get a glimpse of land-use and

land-cover before the reserve was created, and used subsequent years to see patterns in change,

but limited our timeframe to 2003 in order to match our remote sensing data to our survey data,

thus capturing more specific explanations of land-use and land-cover change at a particular point

in time.

Ground data were collected between October 2003 and August 2005 for image

georeferencing, as well as over two hundred additional training samples of various land-cover

types. A training-sample protocol was developed based on the specific ecology and land-

uses/covers of the region and a training-sample data base was created, including information on

the geographic coordinates of the sample using a Global Positioning System (GPS), the land-

use/land-cover type, sketch maps, and digital photos. We also collected brief land-use histories

given by the land-owners to aid in the development of training sample data over various time

frames (other than 2003). Given the spatial resolution of our imagery (i.e. 30m), samples were

limited to areas one hectare or greater.

Geometric rectification with a linear first-order polynomial fit was carried out on the

2003 images based on ground control points collected in the region using a GPS, using roads and

intersections, and when a good geographic distribution was necessary and roads were lacking,

both rivers and waterways. All resampling was done using a nearest neighbor resampling

algorithm. The 2003 images were then used as a base to which the remaining scenes were

resampled. On average, 12 ground control points (GCPs) were used for each image, with at least

one point in each quadrant of the image, resulting in a root mean square error less than 0.5 pixels

(or < 15 m) in each case.

123

Radiometric calibration (RADCAL) and dark subtraction (ATCORR) model developed

by Green et al. (2002) was used to correct images for comparation. Although this method helped

to clean up the images in general, it did not clear up all atmospheric problems, particularly

scattering effects on the 1992 02/67 image. We adopted a hybrid unsupervised/supervised

approach, which allowed us to create a more ample classification schema, even in years where

training sample data were lacking.

An unsupervised classification was carried out on each image using a clustering algorithm

to define land-cover classes based on spectral statistics with a standard number of 100 classes, 12

maximum iterations, and a convergence threshold of 0.95. Our 100 classes were gradually

collapsed into 12 classes: dense forest, open/bamboo forest, initial secondary succession,

intermediate secondary succession, pasture with trees, managed “clean” pasture, unmanaged

“dirty” or “scrubby” pasture, agriculture/bare soil, high density urban, water, cloud, and cloud

shadow (see Table 4-2 for description of classes). Class assignment involved three assessments:

(i) Visual interpretation of the image sequence (geographically linked) using expert knowledge

and vectorized ground data and land-use histories collected in the field to guide our decisions

regarding class ownership, and analysis of the spectral behavior of individual pixels belonging to

known classes using a spectral profile tool; (ii) comparative analysis of the spectral behavior of

the signatures for each of the 100 classes as well as groups of similar classes using the signature

mean plot module; and (iii) the interpretation of unsupervised classes based on their spectral

seperability statistics generated using a transformed divergence module.

Based on these criteria, the initial 100 classes were individually analyzed and assigned,

with the help of the vectorized ground data and land-use histories we collected in the field, to a

final classification schema, spectrally similar classes were merged with like classes, while others,

124

such as those representing noise, were eliminated altogether from the classification. Due to the

large number of initial classes, this was done in several stages producing a series of intermediary

signature files for each year: thus, a 100 class signature file might be reduced to 60 classes, then

30, and once again until the final desired 12 classes had been reached. In order to ensure

maximum spectral seperability of our classes, Steps 1-3 were completed and evaluated various

times throughout the intermediary stages.

Table 4-2. Land-use classification schema ID Class Description

1 Dense Tropical Forest Dense, closed tropical forest common to the region 2 Mixed Open/Bamboo Forest Open semi-deciduous forest intermingled with patches of

bamboo and/or palm species 3 Secondary Succession 1 Herbaceous, seedling and sapling vegetation up to 5 meters

high, typical of agricultural land left to fallow or non-managed pastures

4 Secondary Succession 2 Intermediate secondary stage with woody vegetation up to 15 meters high, closed canopy

5 Pasture with Trees Managed pasture intermingled with trees 6 Managed Clean Pasture Managed clean pasture, open grasslands with substantial

green cover 7 Tall grass/Wetlands Tall grass/wetlands, lush green vegetation typical of areas

with poor drainage or grassy wetlands 8 Agriculture/Bare Soil/Overgrazed Pasture At peak of dry season, areas lacking green vegetation cover,

and/or showing patches of bare soil 9 High Density Urban Presence of asphalt and human-made surfaces with high

reflectance (found outside of reserve only) 10 Water Rivers, creeks, ponds and other water bodies 11 Clouds Cloud 12 Cloud Shadow Cloud Shadow

The final signature files representing 12 land-use/land-cover classes for each image

constituted the input for a supervised classification using a probability-based Maximum

Likelihood algorithm. After classification and evaluation, the classes were further reduced to a

more simple and realistic classification schema given the constraints with such a long image

sequence: Forest, Secondary Succession, a combined Agricultural class (i.e., pasture, agriculture,

bare-soil), Water, and Cloud/Shadow. Aggregation helped eliminate sources of error among our

125

anthropogenic classes, in particular, given that all images correspond to the dry season, when

vegetation is commonly under hydrological stress.

To deal with common problems caused by atmospheric scattering due to cloud cover

problems in our 1992 image specifically and misclassifications and confusion caused by other

anomalies (e.g., tree shadow and natural bamboo “die-off” in one instance), post-classification

techniques, such as a 3 x 3 kernel filer, and to a lesser extent, polygon filling, were used in some

instances and in specific area of interests (AOIs), followed by careful inspection and the visual

comparison of problem areas with the original bands geographically linked to the filtered image.

An independent hold-out sample of roughly 150 ground reference points were digitized

into polygons and used in an accuracy assessment for both the 02/67 and 03/67 footprints for our

2003 images (representing both 895 and 1,264 pixels respectively). In both instances, we

achieved an accuracy level of 85 % (p-value of 0.05).

Land-cover transition matrices were generated using a matrix or cross-tabulation

module. Starting with the 1986 and 1992 images for each footprint, the matrix module was run

successively adding each year in the sequence until a final transition matrix representing all years

between 1986 and 2003 was complete. These transition images follow the state of any given

pixel and its change from year to year. Separate transition matrices were produced to track

deforestation, secondary regrowth, and a final matrix that attempted to capture the

swidden/fallow cycle within each rubber estate, resulting in 6 final images, 3 for each footprint.

Given uncertainties due to the spectral similarities between anthropogenic land uses as well as

the problematic nature of having such a long (18 yr) timeframe, pasture and cultivation classes

were aggregated together to minimize classification error. Our transition matrices, therefore,

used a simple forest-nonforest-secondary forest classification, thus minimizing the chances of

126

error common between anthropogenic classes. As a result, it is impossible to distinguish through

imagery analysis if any of these rubber estates have greater than five percent of their allowable

area in pasture, focusing instead on the efficacy of the 10% rule. Lastly, digital boundaries of the

six seringais were then used to create masks producing 18 final images (capturing deforestation,

regrowth, the swidden/fallow cycle) for each community, allowing the calculation of the rates

and amounts for each transition type between any given time period.

Household Surveys

A total of 130 household interviews were completed within the six rubber estates between

March 2004 and December 2004 by two of the authors (Vadjunec and Gomes) and two field

assistants in conjunction with a local non-governmental organization (NGO), the Group for

Research and Extension in Agroforestry Systems in Acre (PESACRE). As often as possible, the

interviews were completed with both the male and female head of the household. Each interview

was conducted in Portuguese, took about three hours to complete, and contained structured and

open ended questions regarding specific land-use, production and sale of agricultural and

extractive products, small animal and cattle production regarding production and yields for the

year previous (2003), as well as household characteristics and history, and questions regarding

the rules (both formal and informal) and management of the reserve, the history of the

household’s involvement in the rubber tapper’s movement, and the social organization within

each seringal, or rubber estate. Additionally, since many households operate on a mainly

subsistence or recently transitioning mixed-subsistence and market livelihood system, we

constructed a livelihood index to show what we feel is a more realistic picture of overall

economic development and well being. The index totals the presence or absence of 30 social,

economic, and health-related development indicators (e.g., overall house construction,

possession of important household appliances, agricultural equipment, access to an electric

127

generator or other power source, water pump or well, access to safe drinking water or water

treatment, trash and sewage disposal, accessible healthcare and education, mode of

transportation, overall satisfaction with the reserve etc.).

Although the original intent was to choose households at random, difficult access and

incomplete residency lists caused us to adopt a more opportunistic sampling strategy. Few roads

exist in the reserve and some communities required a three day walk to reach. The only

residency list available to use was outdated, and furthermore, was compromised by lack of

information on households that are not officially members of the associations. Sometimes

outsiders and non-members of the movement have purchased land, often illegally; they therefore

may not be registered residents, but they no-doubt bring different land-use practices and

economic orientations to the reserve.

Of the 130 households selected, 65 are involved in the government sponsored

environmental program ProAmbiente, which, although still in initial phases, proposes to pay

small producers for environmental services. These households are officially recognized by and

participate in the municipal-level extractive associations. These households were selected

through a series of open public meetings held by the Rubber Tapper’s Union to generate interest

in ProAmbiente. The remaining 65 households participating in this study were chosen based on

both maximizing the geographical distribution of households selected within each community to

the greatest extent possible, and with the help of key informants, emphasis was placed on

representing the range of households involved in the various extractive/non-extractive activities

that were brought to light in our initial community meetings (i.e., cattle, extractivism,

agriculture, or a mix of activities). After two years of field experience, we estimate that 40% of

the total households were interviewed in each of the study sites.

128

Results

Remote Sensing Results

Figure 4-3 and 4-4 illustrates patterns and spatial/temporal trajectories of land-use/land-cover

change in studied Seringais from 1986 to 2003. Seringal Humaitá had the largest percentage of

total area deforested by 2003, totaling 9.20 % of the seringais (Table 4-3). Porongaba and

Paraguaçu fell between (7.84 % and 6.20 % respectively). Filipinas and São Francisco had the next

lowest amounts of deforestation (3.80 % and 4.93 % respectively). Lastly, Icuriã, had the lowest total

percent deforestation (3.58 %) among all of the six rubber estates.

Deforestation rates were on average highest during the initial 1986-1992 time period,

accounting for between 17-39 % of the total area deforested by 2003, averaging ≈ 24 % of the

total area deforested per seringal. This period was marked by extreme changes in the lifestyles of

rubber tappers, including part of the initial violent conflicts between rubber tappers and cattle

ranchers and the subsequent creation of the reserve in 1990, followed by the discontinuation of

rubber subsidies that occurred in the 1990s. The periods between 1992-1996 and 1996-1999

indicate a general overall drop in deforestation rates within each of these six estates. An overall

drop in deforestation rates during this time frame was also observed elsewhere in the region

(Ludewigs 2006). This overall drop in deforestation rates is perhaps attributable to the initial

optimism of the rubber tappers in securing the reserve, initial international funding and support,

as well as the end of violent land conflicts throughout the region. Between 1999 and 2003 this

trend changed toward more deforestation, for the most part, with the exception of São Francisco,

which continues to see a drop in deforestation rates. Contrary to prediction, however, none of the

study areas have surpassed the allowable limits of deforestation as set by the 10 % rule in the

Utilization Plan.

129

Figure 4-3. Trajectories of LUCC in the seringais in Assis Brasil within the CMER: (1) Icuriã,

(2) São Francisco, (3) Paraguaçu

Figure 4-4. Trajectories of LUCC in the seringais in Brasiléia within the CMER: (4) Humaitá,

(5) Porongaba, (6) Filipinas

1

2

3

64

5

130

Table 4-3. Percent deforestation in six seringais from 1986-2003 Brasiléia Assis Brasil Filipinas

(6) (ha/%)

Porongaba (5)

(ha/%)

Humaitá (4)

(ha/%)

Paraguaçu (3)

(ha/%)

S. Francisco (2)

(ha/%)

Icuriã (1)

(ha/%) Forest 2003 28,777

(96.20) 8,413

(92.18) 12,480 (90.79)

15,838 (93.80)

29,264 (95.07)

63,368 (96.42)

Deforestation 1999-2003

289 (0.97)

167 (1.83)

248 (1.80)

132 (0.78)

196 (0.64)

646 (0.98)

Deforestation 1996-1999

171 (0.57)

63 (0.69)

147 (1.07)

113 (0.67)

438 (1.42)

443 (0.67)

Deforestation 1992-1996

233 (0.78)

188 (2.06)

282 (2.05)

162 (0.96)

318 (1.03)

397 (0.60)

Deforestation 1986-1992

201 (0.67)

188 (2.06)

494 (3.59)

506 (3.00)

477 (1.55)

724 (1.10)

Area deforested (1986)

242 (0.81)

107 (1.18)

94 (0.69)

134 (0.79)

88 (0.29)

144 (0.22)

Total Deforested

1,136 (3.80)

714 (7.84)

1,265 (9.20)

1,047 (6.20)

1,517 (4.93)

2,354 (3.58)

Transition matrices following secondary succession between the 1986-2003 period further

reveal variations in land-use trajectories and schemas between households within each of the six

communities (Table 4-4). Porongaba and Filipinas had among the highest total percentage of

area in secondary succession by 2003, with 4.65 % and 4.62 % respectively. Seringal Humaitá,

with the highest percentage of total area deforested, also had one of the higher percentages in

secondary succession by 2003 (3.59 %). In general, the seringais located in the municipality of

Brasiléia have considerably higher rates of secondary succession than their counterparts in Assis

Brasil (Paraguaçu 1.22 %, São Francisco 1.87 %, and Icuriã 1.47 %). Filipinas, with the second

lowest amount of deforestation, also had the second highest rate in secondary succession (4.62

%), while São Francisco had both a low rate of deforestation and a much lower rate of secondary

succession (1.87 %), suggesting different land-use decisions and intensification among all rubber

estates.

131

Table 4-4. Percent secondary succession in six seringais from 1986-2003 Filipinas

(6) (ha / %)

Porongaba (5)

(ha / %)

Humaitá (4)

(ha / %)

Paraguaçu (3)

(ha / %)

S. Francisco (2)

(ha / %)

Icuriã (1)

(ha / %) Secondary Succession 1999-2003

141 (1.03)

66 (0.72)

134 (0.97)

111 (0.36)

183 (0.59)

362 (0.55)

Secondary Succession 1996-1999

195 (1.42)

234 (2.57)

214 (1.56)

41 (0.13)

80 (0.26)

72 (0.11)

Secondary Succession 1992-1996

89 (0.65)

45 (0.49)

67 (0.49)

46 (0.15)

64 (0.21)

178 (0.27)

Secondary Succession 1986-1992

58 (0.42)

27 (0.30)

34 (0.24)

41 (0.13)

66 (0.21)

215 (0.32)

Area in secondary succession (1986)

152 (1.10)

52 (0.57)

46 (0.33)

139 (0.45)

184 (0.60)

145 (0.22)

Total Secondary 635 (4.62)

425 (4.65)

495 (3.59)

379 (1.22)

577 (1.87)

972 (1.47)

Lastly, a final transition matrix was made for each of the six communities to capture the

swidden/fallow cycle used among small-scale agriculturalists in Amazonia (Moran 2000,

Ludewigs 2006). The final matrix quantified areas that shifted from deforested to secondary

succession and remained in secondary succession throughout the transitions between the 1986-

1992, 1992-1996, 1996-1999, and 1999-2003 images. The result is an estimate of the percent of

areas in secondary succession that remain in secondary succession by 2003 versus the percent

that are re-used and deforested again throughout the 18 year transition (see Table 4-5).

Table 4-5. Area and percent remaining in secondary succession and later reused (swidden/fallow cycle) between 1986-2003 Filipinas

(6) Porongaba

(5) Humaitá

(4) Paraguaçu

(3) S. Francisco

(2) Icuriã

(1) Total area secondary succession b/t 1986-2003 (ha)

635.45 428.07 495.23 378.81 576.63 972.00

Area remaining in secondary succession by 2003 (ha)

269.92 175.58 214.55 57.15 109.27 195.93

Percent remaining in succession by 2003

42.48 41.02 43.32 15.09 18.78 20.16

Percent reused- swidden/fallow cycle by 2003

57.52 58.98 56.69 84.91 81.12 79.84

132

More than half of the area in secondary succession has been re-used within each of the

seringais by 2003. These numbers suggest a high amount of intensification among rubber tapper

households within each seringal. The rubber estates in the municipality of Assis Brasil, on

average, have lower rates of deforestation, along with lower rates of long-term secondary

succession, as well as a higher percentage of areas appearing to capture the swidden/fallow

cycle. As a result, Paraguaçu, São Francisco, and Icuriã appear to be areas undergoing less

extensification, with greater preservation of primary forests. The seringais in Brasiléia, on the

other hand, can be classified as areas with generally higher levels of deforestation along with

higher rates of secondary succession, apparently emphasizing extensification and other options

over more traditional swidden techniques. In the next section, we use the household data to

explain the driving forces of such land change currently underway in the CMER, as well as to

explore its relationship to resident well-being.

Household Survey

The results of our household surveys show a wide range of both subsistence and market

activities among rubber tappers within the various rubber estates surveyed. The main extractive

market activities are the collection of Brazil-nuts and continued rubber tapping for latex

production (despite the overall decline of rubber production in the region). Increasingly, small-

scale agriculture (beans, rice, manioc, coffee and corn), animal husbandry (mainly chickens,

swine, ducks, sheep and goats), and cattle ranching are seen by rubber tapper households as

necessary income-generating alternatives, given the market instabilities associated with

traditional NTFPs. As a result, households are becoming more involved in some sort of market

activity beyond traditional extractivism (Table 4-6).

Multivariate Analysis of the Variance (ANOVA) reveals marked between group difference

regarding the percent of households involved in extractivism and agriculture per rubber estate (p

133

≤ 0.05) (Table 4-6). The most dramatic difference is regarding extractive activities. All

households surveyed within Brasiléia are involved in some sort of extractivism. The households

within the municipality of Assis Brasil are involved to a much lesser extent. Conversely, the

majority of households in Assis Brasil are involved in market agriculture, compared to less than

half of those surveyed in Brasiléia. There are no between group differences regarding the

number of households involved in small animal production and cattle ranching for market sale,

although the extent and intensity varies.

Table 4-6. Percent of households involved in market activitis in 2003 (n=households) Brasiléia Assis Brasil

Filipinas (6)

Porongaba (5)

Humaitá (4)

Paraguaçu (3)

S. Francisco (2)

Icuriã (1)

Extractivism* 100.00

(26)

100.00

(17)

100.00

(19)

65.00

(13)

47.37

(9)

10.00

(3)

Agriculture* 38.46

(10)

58.88

(10)

47.37

(9)

90.00

(18)

73.68

(14)

72.41

(21)

Small Animal Production

84.62

(22)

70.59

(12)

73.68

(14)

85.00

(17)

57.89

(11)

68.97

(20)

Cattle 53.85

(14)

41.18

(7)

68.42

(13)

55.00

(11)

52.63

(10)

79.31

(23)

*Statistically significant at 0.05 level, ** 0.10 level (ANOVA test of significance)

A closer look at the means and standard deviations between seringais reveal marked

differences and emphases in land-use and land-cover strategies among the households surveyed

(Table 4-7). ANOVAs indicate statistically significant between group differences regarding

extractive activities between rubber estates (p ≤ 0.05). There are important differences in Brazil-

nut production with the households in Brasiléia producing upwards of 10 times the amount of

Brazil-nuts produced in the seringais found in Assis Brasil. Brazil-nut prices are consistent and

regulated by the larger market, so the distinction in question is not the result of market

differences between the two municipalities. Rather, it may be the result of ecological differences

134

in terms of forest types between rubber estates. The dense closed canopy forest in the region of

Brasiléia is richer in Brazil-nut trees than are the forests of the other seringais.

Likewise, the number of rubber trails on each property and the amount of rubber

production are significantly different between rubber estates (p ≤ 0.05). Porongaba and Icuriã

(23.59 and 33.93 kg/household, respectively) produce the least latex, while Filipinas and São

Francisco produce the most (223.85 and 258.95 kg/household, respectively), thus being the most

“traditional” of the six seringais in our study. Note, however, the figures for the two high-latex

seringais are well below the 1995 reserve-wide average reported as 714 kg of rubber produced

per household (Feitosa 1995: 72). Although the percent of total income from extractivism

remains significantly high, at least in Brasiléia, the percent of the total household income derived

from rubber has plummeted from the 44.7 % reported by Feitosa (1995: 71) to 8.55 % in the six

rubber estates reported here, making it one of the least important economic activities within our

six seringais.

Not only does rubber production remain highest in our “traditional” seringais, they remain

fairly dependent on it, deriving 11.44 percent of the total household income from the activity in

Filipinas and 20.80 % in São Francisco. In general, these differences can be attributed to various

responses by rubber tappers to the last rubber bust, where some households responded by

diversifying their production base, creating new economic opportunities, while others, due to

either a strong sense of tradition or insufficient resources or other opportunities, continue to

invest in rubber production.

In one instance, however, low levels of rubber production may be attributed to local

species abundances and economic inertia. Seringal Icuriã occupies portions of two watersheds

135

Table 4-7. Summary statistics from household surveys: land-use and livelihood statistics (Mean and S. D.)

Brasiléia Assis Brasil Porongaba

(n=17) Filipinas (n=26)

Humaitá (n=19)

Paraguaçu (n=20)

S. Francisco (n=19)

Icuriã (n=29)

Land Holding Rubber Trails on Property (n)*

4.29 (2.71) 6.08 (3.32) 4.32 (1.83) 5.60 (3.27) 4.16 (2.27) 1.69 (2.80)

Brazil-nut Trees on Property (n)*

213.00 (245.82)

319.42 (345.31)

358.75 (315.19)

92.25 (91.96) 36.95 (113.94) 2.24 (5.50)

Pasture (ha)** 9.44 (4.13) 7.00 (6.38) 12.03 (12.47) 7.70 (7.95) 7.29 (5.37) 11.72 (7.22) Swidden Agriculture (ha)* 2.94 (2.34) 2.16 (1.49) 1.61 (0.76) 2.25 (1.01) 2.34 (1.83) 3.16 (1.60) Extractivism

Brazil Nut (latas)* a 318.71 (224.00)

367.54 (375.97)

254.63 (166.92)

22.80 (46.84) 0.00 (0.00) 0.14 (0.52)

Rubber (kg)* 23.59 (75.23) 223.85 (256.55)

125.26 (176.40)

174.00 (349.88)

258.95 (432.14)

33.93 (124.76)

Agricultural Production Rice (kg) 1030.59

(617.62) 1156.15 (834.40)

738.95 (534.64)

916.00 (647.80)

934.21 (481.33)

916.07 (652.64)

Beans (kg)* 382.94 (344.72)

268.85 (599.58)

228.95 (213.77)

750.00 (580.06)

457.89 (391.67)

395.71 (284.01)

Corn (kg)* 537.94 (546.33)

666.92 (745.57)

557.89 (393.09)

995.00 (945.61)

1121.05 (1258.56)

1239.29 (1010.44)

Manioc flour (kg) * 574.12 (532.81)

599.42 (735.51)

273.63 (418.85)

628.00 (795.18)

331.58 (381.59)

253.93 (195.57)

Café (kg)** 20.88 (52.63) 1.00 (4.05) 37.11 (126.00)

173.80 (386.70)

76.00 (320.70) 25.21 (67.92)

Animal Production (n) Chicken 87.35

(136.29) 38.65 (22.29) 39.68 (31.72) 53.10 (27.15) 61.58 (60.09) 63.43

(32.33) Swine 7.58 (11.04) 9.44 (17.03) 6.16 (9.25) 9.95 (8.25) 12.89 (15.96) 8.64 (9.06) Ducks 0.94 (2.14) 3.42 (5.81) 1.05 (2.86) 1.10 (2.55) 2.95 (3.92) 3.54 (6.00) Sheep/Goats* 3.00 (4.87) 3.41 (5.23) 7.16 (12.81) 5.55 (9.72) 2.63 (5.59) 9.35 (10.00) Cattle** 14.18 (13.39) 8.19 (8.31) 19.47 (29.78) 16.55 (20.17) 7.74 (7.36) 17.45

(13.31) Dependency on Activity (% of total income) Extractivism (%)* % of total rubber

63.06 (29.10) 0.69

74.31 (19.55) 11.44

62.84 (24.31) 5.68

22.95 (27.96) 10.41

20.80 (29.09) 20.80

2.95 (11.89) 2.95

Agriculture (%)* 13.60 (17.59) 8.11 (16.00) 7.60 (14.43) 30.64 (30.00) 27.69 (24.23) 35.15 (30.56)

Small Animal Production (%)*

6.61 (6.89) 9.64 (10.02) 11.26 (14.68) 24.76 (26.13) 11.92 (18.27) 9.38 (12.77)

Cattle (%)* 16.73 (25.70) 7.90 (8.52) 18.46 (22.32) 21.60 (24.29) 18.54 (24.17) 45.30 (31.42)

Livelihood Index*b 10.71 (3.29) 9.04 (2.63) 11.42 (3.83) 7.90 (3.16) 9.63 (4.57) 11.71 (4.22) Statistically significant at *.05 level, **0.10 level (ANOVA test of between group difference) a) A “lata,” or can, is the traditional system of measuring Brazil Nuts in their brute form for sale (i.e., with shells on). 1 lata is equivalent to a 20 liter bucket, and normally yields about 11 kgs of Brazil Nuts. b) Based on 30 individual indicators (e.g., overall house construction, appliances, agricultural equipment, access to an electric generator, water pump, safe drinking water, trash and sewage disposal, accessible healthcare, mode of transportation, etc.).

and that located closest to the main community is not rich in rubber trees. Historically, this

community served as a hub for the sale of regional latex and, given the proximity to the Iaco

River, the transport of latex to urban centers. Many of the residents in this seringal did not tap

136

rubber but instead worked in the counting houses, supply good stores, and with transportation

logistics regarding the rubber trade. Since both the paving of the BR-317 and changing market

conditions, traditional water transport routes for rubber have been either eliminated or have

changed, leaving the residents of Icuriã with less of a role to play in the rubber trade, and fewer

livelihood options, mainly agriculture and cattle ranching.

While the local and regional markets have affected rubber tappers’ land-use choices, the

density of Brazil-nut and rubber trees appear to do so as well. Pearson’s correlation coefficients

(Table 4-8) reveal a significant positive correlation between the percent of total income derived

from extractivism and the number of Brazil-nut trees in the colocação (r = 0.467, p-value ≤

0.01). Similarly, there is a significant positive correlation between the percent of total income

derived from extractivism and the number of rubber trails controlled (r = 0.454, p-value ≤ 0.01).

Similarly, there is a significant positive correlation between the percent of total income

derived from extractivism and the number of rubber trails controlled (r = 0.454, p-value ≤ 0.01).

In contrast, there is a significant negative correlation between both the number of Brazil-nut trees

and rubber trails controlled by a household and the percent of total income derived from both

cultivation and cattle, suggesting that land-users may be choosing livelihood strategies based on

ecological constraints due to differences in NTFP potential among forest types.

There are marked differences in agricultural practices among rubber estates that appear to

be more subtle than other activities, with different seringais emphasizing different products.

Outside of manioc flour production, the three rubber estates in Assis Brasil produce greater

amounts of beans, corn, and coffee (p-value ≤ 0.10), and other than Porongaba, have among the

highest amount of land under agricultural production. Furthermore, the seringais in Assis Brasil

137

Table 4-8. Livelihood index, deforestation, and land-use correlations (n=130)

Livelihood

Index % Income

Agriculture

% Income Small

Animals % Income

Cattle % Income

NTFPs

Total Deforestation

(ha)

Area Pasture

(ha) Agricultural

Plot (ha)

Brazil-nut Trees (n)

Rubber Trails

(n) Livelihood Index

1

-0.047

0.073

0.348*

-0.183**

0.519*

0.491*

0.227*

-0.045

-0.216**

% Income Agriculture

-0.047 1 -0.079 -0.030 -0.548* -0.023 -0.060 0.101

-0.252*

-0.225**

% Income Small Animals

0.073 -0.079 1 -0.170 -0.178** -0.124 -0.149 -0.006

-0.107

-0.003

% Income Cattle

0.348*

-0.030

-0.170

1

-0.527*

0.384*

0.370*

0.192*

-0.202**

-0.255*

% Income NTFPs

-0.183**

-0.548*

-0.178**

-0.527*

1

-0.152***

-0.120

-0.218*

0.467**

0.454*

Total Deforestation (ha)

0.519* -0.023 -0.124 0.384* -0.152 1 0.981* 0.329*

0.080

0.100

Area in Pasture (ha)

0.491* -0.060 -0.149 0.370* -0.120 0.981* 1 0.235* 0.111 0.120

Agricultural Plot (ha)

0.227*

0.101

-0.006

0.192**

-0.218**

0.329*

0.235*

1

-0.184**

-0.068

Total Brazil-nut Trees (n)

-0.045

-0.252*

-0.107

-0.202*

0.467*

0.080

0.111

-0.184**

1

0.394*

Rubber Trails (n)

-0.216**

-0.225**

-0.003

-0.255*

0.454*

0.100

0.120

-0.068

0.394*

1

*Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level, **0.05 level, ***0.10 level

138

derive at least twice as much of their income from market agriculture than in Brasiléia. A

Pearson’s correlation coefficient shows a slight positive relationship between the size of an

individual household’s agricultural plot and pasture size (r = 0.235, p-value ≤ 0.01). Rules that

allow a landholder to deforest two hectares a year (1 hectare mature, 1 hectare secondary forest)

for their agricultural plots may be inadvertently encouraging pasture formation, as it is easier to

transform an old agricultural plot into pasture, than to go from mature forest to pasture.

In a traditional swidden system, each year a household deforests a small area for

agriculture, which, in the past would be left to fallow for an average of three to four years.

Increasingly that fallow is being replaced by pasture and new forest is cut for cultivation. In fact,

56.6 % of the households surveyed leave an abandoned agricultural plot to fallow, 13.1 % turn

that plot immediately to pasture, 19.7 % plant “Pueraria phaseoloides,” or tropical kudzu, and

10.6 % follow some combination of these options. Tropical kudzu, a legume (nitrogen fixing)

and weed suppressant species, is often planted for forage for cattle and is used in pasture

development. The majority of households surveyed in the rubber estates in Assis Brasil leave

their abandoned agricultural plots for fallow. The majority of households surveyed in Brasiléia,

on the other hand, plant either tropical kudzu or pasture following agriculture, suggesting various

land management strategies between the two municipalities.

Pasture and agricultural development have a positive relationship with deforestation, while

extractivism a negative one. Interestingly, there appears to be no correlation between either the total

area deforested or the total area in pasture, and the number of Brazil-nut trees and rubber trails on

household property (see Table 4-8). These results lead us to believe that the influence on land-use

decisions of changing markets and ecological conditions notwithstanding, pushing land-holders in

one direction or another, decisions regarding the number of cattle to possess and the amount of land

139

to deforest may be based on other social, institutional, or political factors, such as access to capital

funds, rubber tapper culture, or participation in the movement. It is important to note that cattle are

seen by many rubber tappers as a savings account, an asset to be used in times of distress (Feitosa

1995). This follows a similar rationale amongst colonist smallholders elsewhere in Acre (Ludewigs

2006) and can be found throughout Amazonia (Faminow 1998, Mertens et al. 2002). For other

households, cattle are becoming a major market activity (Gomes 2001). Regardless, the investment

in cattle pays off as there is a significant positive correlation between the percent of total household

income derived from cattle and livelihood welfare (r = 0.384, p-value ≤ 0.01), while there is a

negative correlation between the percent of total income derived from extractivism and quality of

life (livelihood index) (r = -0.183, p-value ≤ 0.05). Agriculture and small animal production

appears to have no significant relationship to livelihood, but a significant positive relationship

exists between deforestation and a household’s livelihood index (r = 0.519 p-value ≤ 0.01).

Overall the seringal -level household results suggest that Seringal Filipinas and São

Francisco are the most “traditional” rubber estates with the highest latex production and lowest

amounts of both cattle (8.19 and 7.74) and pasture (7.00 and 7.29 ha) per household. Households in

Humaitá have the greatest amounts of both pasture (12.03 ha) and cattle (19.47), but also remain

involved to some extent in a variety of extractive activities. Icuriã has the second highest reported

amounts of both pasture (11.72 ha) and cattle (17.45). While Humaitá and Icuriã appear to be the

least ‘traditional’ of the rubber estates, the communities of Porongaba and Paraguaçu reside

somewhere in between these two nodes in terms of both pasture (9.44 ha and 7.70 ha) and cattle

(14.18 and 16.55). With the exception of Icuriã, these results are consistent in explaining the

deforestation trends outlined previously in the remote sensing analysis.

140

Discussion

The results suggest that the label “rubber tappers” for the occupants of the CMER may be a

misnomer. In fact, among the seringais surveyed here, households pursue diverse livelihood

practices including extractivism, small-scale market cultivation, small animal rearing, and

increasingly, cattle production. Rubber tapping plays increasingly less an important role in

livelihood strategies. Still, the majority of households surveyed identify themselves, for

historical, cultural, and political reasons, as rubber tappers first and foremost, rather than

colonists, small-scale ranchers, or agriculturalists. Indeed, some evidence suggests that rubber

tappers’ involvement in agriculture and small-scale cattle rearing is not just a recent

development, but always existed, although to a much lesser extent, since the rubber barons

abandoned their rubber estates in the 1960s and 1970s (Murrieta and Rueda 1995). The main

change is not the adoption of such activities; it is the extent of their use and relative proportion of

household income. Rubber tappers are no doubt being influenced by development forces

operating outside the CMER. In Acre, rubber has descended from the most important economic

activity to one of the least, while cattle and cultivation have become increasingly important. Thus

cattle have a ready market outside of the reserve, while many rubber and extractive products

simply do not. Understanding the land dynamics in the reserve requires the expansive

interpretation of the rubber-tapper label that is held by the occupants and central to their land-use

decisions.

According to the remote sensing analysis, none of the six seringais surveyed here have

surpassed the 10 % limit set on the amount of allowable deforestation by 2003, although at least

one trend projection indicated that this limit would be exceeded by that date. Humaitá and

Porongaba are, however, close to reaching this limit. It is also noteworthy that some seringais

141

may have passed the 5 % allowable for pasture (roughly 15 hectares per household).3 Compared

to other land-users in Amazonia, deforestation rates remain low, however. Evidence of high

amounts of land in secondary succession in Brasiléia and increasing intensification among land-

users in Assis Brasil suggests that rubber tappers may be undergoing a process of adaptation that

may alleviate deforestation pressures with proper management. The reserve provides other

important environmental services that must also be considered. The CMER currently serves as a

firewall, buffering the rain forest (located between highly deforested cattle ranches and largely

forested indigenous communities), and offering biodiversity protection (Vadjunec 2007).

Pasture for cattle and crop development are the greatest drivers of deforestation within our

study areas, and appear to be negatively correlated with extractive activities. The rubber estates

with the highest amount of cattle also have the highest amount of deforestation. The only

exception to this trend was Seringal Icuriã, but this may be due to inconsistencies with both

population dynamics and boundary issues. Cropping plays more of an important role in the

rubber estates of Assis Brasil where natural forest differences resulting from the division of the

watershed limit NTFP extractive potential. Furthermore, cultivation is linked to deforestation

because increasingly households convert their abandoned agricultural plots to pasture instead of

leaving them to fallow.

As expected, Filipinas and São Francisco, the two most traditional extractive seringais (in

terms of sustained emphasis on latex production), had fewer cattle, maintaining among the

lowest rates of deforestation. This result suggests that investments in non-timber forest projects

might be beneficial to forests. As currently practiced, however, emphasis on NTFP production

3 Due to the common property aspects of the reserve, the difficulty mapping at the household level, and the fact that many households actually create pasture together, while other households rent their pasture out, we rely on the remote sensing results to test the efficacy of the deforestation rules, and use the household level data to explore relationships between land-use, deforestation, and well-being.

142

does not appear to better livelihood conditions. For extractivism to be a serious contender, these

traditional seringais press for the return of long-term and realistic subsidies, supporting rubber

collection as well as heavy investments in other “green” products such as açai fruit, honey,

vegetal leather products and handicrafts. The pro-forest government of Acre has already started

to invest in these areas, with the creation of a condom factory in Xapuri , for example, but it

remains to be seen whether it will get residents back to rubber tapping, let alone working in other

NTFP activities.

Most of the debate surrounding cattle in the CMER focuses on deforestation for pasture,

but such arguments need to be expanded to include considerations of both secondary regrowth

and the swidden/fallow cycle. The remote sensing analysis shows that much of the deforestation

in the six seringais surveyed here is permitted to move into secondary succession, and over half

of the area in secondary succession is re-used at a later time period. Thus a significant

proportion of the disturbed land cover in the study area remains in some disturbed condition and

is not permitted to reach mature stages of forest regrowth. Rubber tapper households appear to

be changing their production systems. Although most rubber tapper households are not

expanding their agricultural plots per se, they may be using the “2-hectare per year” rule to

augment their pasture size on a yearly basis Overall, the results suggest that land-use and land-

cover change, and even the responses to such change, is dynamic in the CMER. Aside from

changing market and land-use emphases and the resulting variable rates of deforestation, there

are also increasing differences in production systems and technologies adopted by rubber tappers

as their main source of livelihood begin to change, suggesting not only extensification but also

intensification.

143

Lastly, it is obvious from this exercise that new property boundaries of some seringais

are needed. Icuriã is a case in point, a community in which the official digital rubber estate

boundaries appear to be inconsistent with both the community’s and local officials’ definition of

the actual seringal, with some officially recognized residents appearing to live outside of both

the reserve itself, as well as the community. In addition, various boundaries exist for a few of

the seringais in the CMER that have size differences of as much as 15 %. Such variances no

doubt affect the results of the deforestation amounts and rates reported here at the seringal level.

When the question of which boundary to use arose, we opted for the boundaries that most

incorporated the households surveyed within the specific community, relying on both GPS points

and field experience in the region. If remote sensing is to be considered a serious tool for

monitoring the sustainability of the CMER, it is crucial that these issues be resolved.

The discrepancy with Icuriã between the high amount of land reported by households to

be in pasture and the low levels of actual deforestation found in the remote sensing analysis

points to yet another issue; mainly, extenuating ecological circumstances caused by the division

of the watershed, making much of the seringal uninhabitable. Unlike the five other rubber estates

in this study, where all land is claimed by some household or another, much of Icuriã is without

water (or Brazil-nut trees), and consequently without households. These vast tracks of barren

land create an unfair advantage for the residents of Icuriã when monitoring the 10 % rule at the

community level. Exceptions like Icuriã reveal the limits to a remote sensing approach when

monitoring the adherence of households to the rules outlined in the PU, and show why it is

important to monitor the reserve’s efficacy on the ground. Given these new boundary issues in an

historically common property system where property is defined by access to trees and trails,

rather than geometric space per se, we argue that in order for monitoring to be effective with the

144

adoption of new land-use practices, authorities really need to invest in mapping properties at the

household (colocação) level. This will ensure that effective and timely monitoring can, indeed,

take place.

Conclusions

The search for a “win-win” scenario in the CMER and other Extractive Reserves in Brazil

appears to be far more complicated than the simplified notion that rubber tapping and other

NTFP activities can provide improved material well being while preserving tropical forest.

Furthermore, the majority of rubber tappers themselves, at least in this study and most likely for

the CMER, define their “rubber tapper” label as including a wide-range of activities that require

the forest to be cut, perhaps increasingly so. Overall, when compared to outside colonization

projects and ranching operations, the deforestation occurring within the CMER can be

considered quite low, but when looked at as a conservation unit, the six seringais examined are

undergoing surprisingly rapid land-use and land-cover changes with cattle and agriculture as the

main drivers of such change. Such changes are inextricably linked to current outside market

influences, which privilege cattle to NTFP extractivism. As of yet, however, none of these six

seringais have surpassed the 10 % limit set on the amount of allowable deforestation. While

some communities may surpass allowable deforestation limits in the near future, evidence of

intensification among land-users suggests that rubber tappers may be undergoing a process of

adaptation that alleviates deforestation pressures while providing improved incomes. After all

Holt (2005: 209) argues: “conservation develops as a result of experience and learning, sparked

by negative changes in resource characteristics.” The environmental changes now underway

may be capturing this learning and adjustment process, rather than a long-term trend suggesting

system unsustainability.

145

Much of the current criticism questioning the sustainability of the CMER, and the entire ER

model, may reflect biases or misconceptions regarding the character of “rubber tapping” livelihoods

as well as the “pristineness” of Amazonian forests. The murder of Chico Mendes has been enlarged

to equate cattle with “evil” livelihoods. As a result of such caricaturizing, the mere idea that the

rubber tappers championed by Mendes are now raising cattle themselves is met with little enthusiasm

by some proponents of the extractive reserve concept. It must be remembered that Chico Mendes

and the rubber tappers may have been fighting for the forest, but also, and more importantly, for a

right to both a better livelihood and land security.

Cattle and market agriculture are and will likely remain part of a rubber tapper’s land-use

system, and consequently need to be addressed realistically in terms of appropriate policy

development for the rubber tapper populations in the region. Rubber tappers want technical support

regarding agricultural development, particularly pasture formation and its sustained use. Cattle,

however, remains a “dirty” word in the CMER, and rubber tappers continue to find little support,

information, or new policy and regulations regarding such matters. The results of this study show

that cattle are positively linked to both livelihood welfare and deforestation, while dependence on

extractivism (at least as currently practiced) is linked to a decrease in welfare, as well as a decrease in

deforestation. Our suggestion, therefore, is two-fold. Policy directions for both the CMER and the

ER model need to focus on cattle regulation and sustainable pasture management, as well as a serious

re-investment in NTFP marketing and development in order to make extractivism more viable.

146

CHAPTER 5 WHAT MAKES A RUBBER TAPPER IN THE BRAZILIAN AMAZON?: CULTURAL,

LIVELIHOODS AND INSTITUTIONAL-ORGANIZATIONAL FACTORS UNDERLYING SELF-DEFINITION

Introduction

The Amazon Rubber Boom, which spanned the late nineteenth and early twentieth

centuries, introduced a new social actor to Amazonia - the rubber tapper - a forest extractivist at

the bottom of a mercantile network linking local, regional and global economies. Over the course

of a century, rubber tapper identities originated and centered on their cultural heritage as

impoverished migrant peasants with roots in the semi-arid Brazilian northeast (Santos 1980),

laborers coerced by rubber estate owners in Amazonia under the dept peonage systems (Cunha

1946, Weinstein 1983, Bunker 1985), and more recently evolved to emphasize successful natural

resource managers living at peace with the forest (Anderson 1990, 1992 and 1994, Fearnside

1992, Nepstad and Schwartzman 1992, Allegretti 1995) and as articulators of a victorious social

and environmental justice movement in defense of the forest that have directly influenced policy

in the Amazon through the Extractive Reserve system (Allegretti 1989, 1990 and 1994,

Schwartzman 1989, Fearnside 1989).

With a recent history of notable accomplishments, rubber tappers’ perceptions of

livelihood options have become broader and are starting to show contrasting trajectories (Gomes

2001, Vadjunec 2007). Official recognition of rubber tapper land claims led many observers to

expect forest extractivism to continue, indeed to flourish. Forest extractivism, however, has

increasingly faced economic difficulties that have prompted changes in livelihood strategies,

even to the point of the growing adoption of cattle ranching, an activity long associated with

rancher adversaries of rubber tappers (Gomes 2001 and 2005, Ehringhaus 2006, Vadjunec 2007,

Toni 2007).

147

Since their historic achievements in the 1980s, there has been little attention to the

cultural definition rubber tappers (Wallace 2004, Vadjunec 2008). Given rapid socio-economic,

institutional and political transformations in the Amazon, it is important to examine rubber

tappers individuals’ self-definition, after almost three decades of their historical struggle. Given

the circumstances in which they are now situated, we explore the idea of what it means to be a

rubber tapper in Amazonia today. To answer this question, it is important to understand the

evolution of rubber tapper livelihood trajectories to comprehend how rubber tapper definition

was historically constructed and how individuals currently define themselves.

Rubber Tappers’ Historical Trajectories and Definition Construction

During the rubber boom, the definition of a rubber tapper was straightforward: a “migrant

worker tapping rubber in the Amazon.” The collapse of the Amazonian rubber industry prompted

by the appearance of plantation-grown rubber in Southeast Asia (Weinstein 1983), however,

forever altered this definition. The Amazonian rubber economy was briefly revitalized by the

Brazilian and United States governments during the Second World War when Southeast Asian

rubber supplies areas were controlled by the Japanese, blocking the U.S and its allies’ access to

rubber (Martinello 1988). Although the state assumed economic and social control of the rubber

industry during this period, long-time rubber tappers and new migrants continued to be subjected

to a highly exploitative relationship under the same historic debt peonage systems (called

aviamento), despite the fact that a grassroots reaction to these systems became increasingly more

evident (Bakx 1988, Oliveira 1985, Martinello 1988). After the second short-lived rubber boom,

the Amazonian rubber economy once again collapsed, causing many rubber barons to abandon

their rubber estates, leaving the rubber tappers to fend themselves. Despite the failure of rubber

to establish long-term economic development of the region (Coomes and Barnham 1994), the

148

rubber tapping industry indelibly impacted its culture (Tocantins 1979, Santos 1980, Bakx 1988,

Rancy 1992).

In the state of Acre in the southwestern Brazilian Amazon, rubber tapping was once at the

core of the state economy, bringing thousands of people to the region and shaping local culture.

After the rubber economy crash, while many rubber tappers in the state fled to urban centers,

others stayed in the abandoned rubber estates supplying local and regional markets with latex

(otherwise banned for importing into Brazil). The establishment of strong ties with the forest

along with a new found freedom from the aviamento system, led to livelihood diversification

among rubber tapper communities. Other forest products such as Brazil nuts became more

important, and rubber tappers began to engage in small-scale subsistence agriculture (e.g.,

Campbell 1996). Such extractive activities, however, only held a peripheral importance in

regional politics - extractivism was generally viewed as a backward, economically-stagnant, and

peripheral activity, and forest dwellers were considered as obstacles to development in

Amazonia (Barbosa 2000). After the final rubber bust, the largely forgotten rubber tappers were

virtually invisible on the national scene (Almeida 2004).

In the 1960s, Brazil’s then-military government prioritized regional development policies

aimed at opening up the Amazon frontier as a way to integrate the region with the rest of the

country, including major infrastructure programs, colonization projects, and stimulation of

economic growth via fiscal incentives for capital investment (Mahar 1978, Hecht and Cockburn

1989, Moran 1981, Oliveira 1991, Schmink and Wood 1992). By the 1970s, migration by farm

families into colonization areas proceeded alongside the establishment of large ranches by

investors. As a result, ranching activities began to be consolidated, while forest extractivism was

forgotten by the national government.

149

In Acre, where extractivism was still the basis of the state economy, the 1970s were

marked by a major federal campaign to attract investors from the south of Brazil. The “isolated

lands” targeted for settlement were historic rubber estates, which at the time were still occupied

by rubber tappers unable to prove land rights under Brazilian law. Nonetheless, their land was

rapidly transferred by rubber estate owners to “Paulistas” - ranchers originating from São Paulo

and other states in southern Brazil. Widespread land speculation occurred rapidly, and in few

years around of one third of the land in Acre was sold to Paulistas and former rubber estates

were cleared by cattle ranchers (Bakx 1988, Silva 1990, Calaça 1993).

The arrival of roads and investors alongside with a rapid shift in landownership, led to

violent conflicts along the development frontier (Nunes 1991, Sobrinho 1992, Silva, 2003, Paula,

2005, Paula and Silva 2006). The clash of legacy of the rubber boom, with its history of a strong

forest-based culture, and heavily influenced by the Rural Worker’s Union and the Catholic

Church, rubber tappers mobilized as a social movement in Acre in the late 1970’s. Chico Mendes

was a major force behind the movement. Through non-violent collective action, Mendes and the

rubber tappers fought for recognition of their historic land claims, in light of abandonment of

rubber estates by their owners. The rubber tapper’s movement gradually evolved, receiving

increasing political clout for their agrarian reform via recognition of their traditional land claims.

During the rubber tappers’ fight against cattle ranchers, the traditional notion of rubber

tapper definition was actively portrayed and vocalized. Grassroots mobilization in defense of

forests and their inhabitants won admirers among international environmental organizations who

emphasized the ecological benefits of forest-based extractivism, propelling rubber tappers onto

the world stage through a discourse that linked human rights abuses and environmental

destruction. Rubber tappers articulated an environmental image of extractivism to support their

150

agrarian reform agenda. The success of the rubber tappers’ movement in protecting their land

and livelihoods in addition to their evolving strategy of political negotiation and agenda-

building, drastically changed the conceptualization that rubber tappers might have previously

elaborated, requiring a more complex definition. As a result, being a rubber tapper came to be

associated with social movement for agrarian reform to recognize traditional land rights based on

long-term use of forest for sustainable livelihoods practices. It was under these circumstances, as

has been well-documented (see Revkin 2004, Hecht and Cockburn 1990), that the traditional

definition of rubber tapper evolved to be associated with greenness, emphasizing the

environmental dimension of forest extractivism.

Growing recognition of the social and ecological consequences of deforestation and the

murder of Chico Mendes in a year of record forest burning in the Amazon prompted the creation

of federal extractive reserves system (Allegretti 1990; Schwartzman 1992). Extractive reserves

are forest areas inhabited by extractive populations granted long-term usufruct rights to resources

which they collectively manage (Allegretti 1989). The creation of the first extractive reserves in

early 1990s marked an unprecedented success of environmental policy-making in the Brazilian

Amazon (Allegretti 1989; Schwartzman 1989), and has been promoted as a focal policy tool for

promoting forest conservation while simultaneously increasing the economic value of forests and

rural income.

Despite this potential and promotion as a model for extractivism development in

Amazonia, historically only two non-timber forest products (NTFPs), rubber and brazil nut, have

been extensively managed. Ironically, at the onset of ER implementation in the 1990s, federal

rubber subside for rubber was cut, and the already low rubber prices plummeted. Almost two

decades after the establishment of the federal Extractive Reserves in Amazonia, however, the

151

model still faces challenges of putting these objectives into practice as economic, social, and

ecological constraints have emerged (e.g. Anderson 1992, Browder 1990 and 1992, Homma

1992, Hall 1997). Extractivist communities are still faced with a current pattern of low-income

generation based solely on forest activities, and the goal of economic growth is a major driver

forcing livelihood change in Extractive Reserves. As the pressure to diversify production and to

increase income grows, rubber tappers are increasingly moving toward cash-crop agriculture,

and small-scale cattle ranching as important components of their livelihoods strategies to

maintain and/or increase household income (e.g. Gomes 2001, Wallace 2004, Ehringhaus 2006,

Vadjunec 2007). Nevertheless, despite the widespread decline of rubber tapping, the category of

rubber tapper (seringueiro) has become and continues to be culturally and politically powerful

within the social movement and regional politics.

In 1998, allies of the rubber tappers movement came to power in the state of Acre and

launched new experiments in regional development policies (Kainer et al. 2003). Jorge Viana, an

environmentalist, an academically trained forester, and a close associate of Chico Mendes, was

elected governor for the state in 1998 and re-elected in 2002. In the 2006 election, Arnóbio

Marques (“Binho”), Viana’s vice-governor, was elected governor and continues the development

policies initiated by his predecessor. The “Forest Government” as it is locally called, operates

under broadly defined concepts of forest development. The driving principal of diversified

extractivist development emphasizes the social aspect of local and regional development and is

evidenced in the government’s latest forest conservation and development concept “Florestania,”

or forest citizenship. Florestania is built on respect for the environment and recognition and

appreciation of local knowledge and cultural traditions of forest dwellers, honoring the legacy of

Chico Mendes and the rubber tappers’ movement (Government of Acre 2005).

152

The Forest Government has gained growing support in Brazil and abroad and has been

successful in rallying financial support for its ground-breaking development approach. This

legacy and the platform the government gave to alternative development ideas helped them to

advance major programs funded by the Brazilian national government, the National Bank for

Social and Economic Development (BNDES), and multilateral cooperation agencies, such as the

Inter-American Development Bank (IDB).

Forest dwellers are encouraged to increase production of the twin pillars of the traditional

Acrean extractivist economy: rubber tapping and Brazil nut harvesting. An important fiscal

incentive was the creation of the Chico Mendes Law in 1999 - a rubber subsidies program to

encourage a return to rubber tapping (Kainer et al. 2003). To offer value-added income for

rubber tappers families, the state government has created a series of incentives for forest-based

entrepreneurs, which include access to green markets and processing of forest-based production.

Xapuri, where the rubber tapper movement arose, has become an industrial complex for diverse

forest-based development initiatives, which include community-based logging, an eco-friendly

furniture industry, a Brazil nut processing plant, and a condom factory that uses local latex to

supply the Brazilian Health Ministry’s program with distribution of condoms in medical centers

throughout the country.

In this context, rubber tapper definition has become strongly embedded in Acreano State

history and pride, becoming part of a larger, more complex regional concept over time. Yet,

their traditional definition and knowledge remain alive, complex, and extremely dynamic. Little

research has been done in Amazonia regarding peasant self-definition. Nugent (1993) argues that

traditional Amazonian peasantry is historically wrongly defined by the “other” and remains

relatively “invisible,” yet quite complex. Harris (2007: 7) concludes that Amazonian river

153

dwellers define themselves based on shared skills and experiences, adapted around survival to

changing market and environmental conditions. Becker (2004: 9) criticizes the seemingly

uniform category of Latin American “peasantry,” and instead argues that many social groups

have “hybrid identities” based on a complex combination of their own culture, the prevailing

dominant culture, land struggles, and political and economic forces. Here, we explore this

complex definition of peasant as it refers to rubber tappers.

While local discourse sometimes points in this direction, there is no golden age of rubber

tapping to return to and regardless of these many changes in support of forest extractivism, cattle

ranching is continuous expanding in Acre (Valentim et al. 2002; Toni 2007). What is more, this

land use activity is not confined to larger-scale landowners but is growing among other groups

and erstwhile rubber tappers (Gomes 2001). Although cattle ranching runs counter to the

ecologically sustainable precepts of the extractive reserve concept, rubber tapper communities in

the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve (CMER), the symbolic site of the early struggles are

increasingly pursuing small-scale cattle ranching as a sound income-generating activity. This

trend toward cattle ranching occurred despite profound historical and cultural differences with

rubber tappers livelihoods trajectories, but it respond to regional market demand operating in the

region, and dominate economy outside extractive reserve areas. We therefore argue that

traditional definition of rubber tapper need to be revisited, and a more dynamic view that

recognizes the wider range of economic possibilities within extractive reserves discussed. The

image of ‘forest guardian’ with inherently environmental practices is dangerous in the context of

changing pressures and practices and the idealized guardian can be recast as the “forest villain,”

fueling agendas of hardcore protectionists and developers.

154

Chico Mendes has himself become a legend of almost mythic proportions, being described

as an “ecologist,” a “rain-forest Gandhi,” an “eco-martyr,” and one of the “50 most important

environmental thinkers in history” (Gale 1998, Palmer 2002, Maxwell 2003, Revkin 2004). On

the 20th anniversary of his murder (dec/2008), his memory was celebrated in many ways. In

Acre, the state government officially dedicated 2008 as the Year of Chico Mendes; the Brazilian

Congress dedicated a solemn special session to remember his name and struggle; his story was

retold throughout major newspapers and television networks (e.g., BBC, Discovery Channel,

Globo); and the Brazilian President, Luiz Ignacio “Lula” da Silva, led tributes to Chico Mendes

in his weekly radio address. Diverse political coalitions have coalesced around Chico Mendes’

legacy, developing a dialectic around the importance of the “forest-dwellers” that Mendes

represented; however, in many cases the coalition member groups have each tried to set a

different agenda for rubber tappers, each claiming to be a direct philosophical descendent of

Chico Mendes’ legacy of forest conservation.

For all this celebration and attention, when rubber tappers do not behave as expected, they

are criticized. Ironically, while everyone was celebrating Chico Mendes’ memory, the Brazilian

Environmental Agency (IBAMA) began an operation to expel “illegal” occupants from the

extractive reserve that carries Chico Mendes’ name. IBAMA took the stance that those raising

cattle were acting illegally by not obeying the reserve’s rules against increasing cattle raising

activities, and 350 families were commanded to leave the reserve. The president of the Rural

Workers Union of Xapuri, the same Union Chico Mendes was president when assassinated,

however, challenged IBAMA’s action against these reserve families, arguing that small-scale

cattle ranching has become an important economic activity for rubber tappers and the lack of

155

government investment in extractive reserves is to blame for such livelihoods transformations

and its environmental impacts in the Reserve.

The problem described here represents an opportunity for broader debates on forest

resource co-management pacts by government institutions and grassroots organizations for

economic options and administration of extractive reserves in the very place where Chico

Mendes argued for this right twenty years ago. It is time to ask questions about how these new

contradictions might shape rubber tapper definition today.

The past one hundred years or so have constituted rubber tapper as a distinct social

category. During this time, rubber tapper definition has evolved. That is of course based on neo-

colonial comparative advantages of the region, tied to rubber, albeit under highly exploitative

labor relations. That changed via the autonomy and the agrarian reform movements, which

evidence attachment to the rubber estates, which were adamantly defended by rubber tappers,

which also helped constitute regional identity in Acre as opposed to the Paulistas from southern

Brazil, and originated a strong environmental movement in the region.

Campaign all call on invocation of “seringueiro” in specific ways that were not always

consonant. Rubber tapper definition have changed over time and often been imposed by

outsiders, whether critics or supporters. And now, all of this is back in play, because the

historical trappings of exploitative labor relations has been swept away, the economic

importance of rubber is in question, and the quality of life in towns looks in many ways better

than that in Extractive Reserve. There are currently divergent pressures on people in the CMER

as regards their productive activities, via supports for extractivism alongside market incentive for

cattle ranching, and consequently this pulls various directions at how rubber tappers define

themselves. If all these are shorn from rubber tappers as a basis for their definition, we are left

156

with regionalism, which is somewhat diffuse since it does not just apply to the CMER but to

Acre more generally.

This study seeks to shed light on rubber tappers’ definition reflecting on their historical

livelihood trajectories while considering their current evolving socioeconomic and development

circumstances as residents of Extractive Reserve. This paper uses quantitative data collected from

a household survey, and qualitative data collected from key-informant interviews from the Chico

Mendes Extractive Reserve to explore the following questions: (1) Does everyone self-identify

as a rubber tapper today? (2) If not, which cultural, institutional organizational and livelihoods

characteristics help explain who does?, and (3) What additional qualitative evidence can help us

interpret what it now means to identify as a rubber tapper?

Data and Methods

Selection of the Study Sites

This study was carried out with rubber tapper communities of the Chico Mendes Extractive

Reserve (CMER) in southwestern Brazilian Amazonian state of Acre (Figure 5-1). The eastern

part of Acre lies at the westernmost limit of the Amazonian development frontier that

experienced massive changes in land use since the 1970s, constituting part of the complex land

use mosaic. The CMER lies just at this limit of the frontier. Forest dwelling communities in this

region live at the threshold of forest based economies and competing large-scale types of land-

use in which the CMER is nested within and along the limits of the deforestation front and

within different land tenure types and thus, different land uses. In many ways, the study region

and its unique political ecology are particularly appropriate for the study of the changing

perception of what it means to be a rubber tapper today.

The CMER is the second largest extractive reserve in Amazonia with an area of

approximately 970,570 ha (9,705 square kilometers). It is divided into the historically important

157

rubber tapper estates (seringais), stretching across seven municipalities and bordering the

Brazilian highway leading to the Pacific. Research was carried out in eight rubber estates within

three municipalities of the CMER: Assis Brasil (São Francisco, Icuria, Paraguaçu), Brasiléia

(Humaita, Porongaba, Filipinas) and Xapuri (São João do Iracema, Indêpendencia). Seringais

were chosen with the assistance of reserve leaders, and were stratified on the basis of their

location and orientation towards perceived traditional extractive and non-traditional rapidly

changing communities.

ACRE

CMER

BRAZIL

w 69o30’ w 69o00’ w 68o30’ w 68o00’s 11o00’

s 10o30’

s 10o05’

Xapuri

BrasiléiaAssis Brasil

Figure 5-1 – Location of the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve

Household Surveys

A total of 149 household interviews were completed within the eight communities between

March 2004 and January 2005. Each interview took about three hours to complete, and contained

158

open and closed ended questions regarding general land-use and household characteristics and

history, as well as specific questions regarding individuals self-definition issues. Randomization,

in this case, was not possible. Difficult access in the rainy season and incomplete residency lists

caused the research team to adopt a more opportunistic approach. Few roads exist in the reserve,

and some communities are 50-75 km from the nearest urban center. As a result, attention focused

on ensuring adequate geographic coverage while stratifying for different livelihood orientations

and emphases (i.e., extractivist, agriculture, small animal production and cattle). Data from the

surveys are used in descriptive statistics and in the multivariate regression model. Results of the

data are enriched by open-ended interviews with key-informants.

Operational Definitions, Measurement and Hypothesized Effect of Explanatory Variables

This section presents operational definitions for a respondent’s self-definition outcome

variable as well as a set of explanatory variables that may influence a respondent’s self-definition

as a rubber tapper. These variables consider both indicators related to rubber tapper’s historical

trajectories as well as explore the contradictory nature of changing land use observed in the

Chico Mendes Reserve.

Table 5-1 contains definitions and the operationalization for all explanatory variables used

in the analysis, in addition to their expected effects on a household head’s self-definition as a

rubber tapper. We focus on a single outcome binomial variable: a respondent’s self-definition as

a rubber tapper. To account for variation in this outcome variable, the analysis includes five

groups of explanatory variables: socioeconomic characteristics of the households head’s,

institutional and organizational contexts, land-use practices, location, and knowledge about land

use rules in the reserve. These indicators provide a measure of the diverse factors that may lead

to a household head’s self-definition as a rubber tapper, given the transformations currently

occurring in the extractivist economy throughout the region.

159

Table 5-1. Operational definitions and hypothesized relationships of explanatory and outcome variables

Variables Operational definition/Unit Expected effects on

individual definition as rubber tapper

Outcome variable: Household head’s self-definition rubber tapper (0=no, 1 = yes) Independent Variables: 1 - Socioeconomic Indicators A - Household Head’s Background First occupant of the homestead (0=no, 1 = yes) + Years of residence years in the homestead + Age of household head years + Schooling of household head years - Previous residence 0 = in the reserve; 1=outside + Relatives living in this seringal 0=no, 1 = yes + B - Assets Household owns a tv 0=no, 1 = yes - Household owns gas 0=no, 1 = yes - Household owns a refrigerator 0=no, 1 = yes - Manioc processor house 0=no, 1 = yes - Household owns a solar panel 0=no, 1 = yes - Household owns a chainsaw 0=no, 1 = yes - Household has a wood house 0=no, 1 = yes + Household owns a phone 0=no, 1 = yes - 2 - Institutional Context indicators Assoc. at municipal level Membership ( 0=no, 1 = yes) + Assoc. at community level Membership ( 0=no, 1 = yes) + Assoc. w/ producers cooperative Membership ( 0=no, 1 = yes) + Assoc. w/ rural workers syndicate Membership ( 0=no, 1 = yes) + Participated in empate ( 0=no, 1 = yes) + Participates in multirão ( 0=no, 1 = yes) + Household head received gov. credit ( 0=no, 1 = yes) - 3 – Land-Use Indicators C – Forest Extractivism Rubber tapping ( 0=no, 1 = yes) + Total area hac + Rubber production measured in kilos + Total number of brazil nut trees number + Total brazil nut production measured in kilos + D – Annual Crops sold Rice production sold kilos sold - Corn production sold kilos sold -

160

Table 5-1 Continued. Variables Operational definition/Unit Expected effects on individual definition

as rubber tapper Bean production sold kilos sold - Manioc production sold kilos sold - E – Cattle ranching and pasture Raise cattle ( 0=no, 1 = yes) - Household started to raise cattle measured in years - Total number of head of cattle number - Total number of cattle head sold number - Household started to make pasture measured in years - Total size of pasture area measured in ha - Plan for # of cattle in 10 years number - 4 – Location Household at municipalities 1=Xapuri + 2=Brasileia + 3=Assis Brasil - 5 – Land use rules indicators Knows the utilization plan ( 0=no, 1 = yes) + Know the 10% deforestation rule ( 0=no, 1 = yes) + Know the 5% pasture rule ( 0=no, 1 = yes) +

Socio-economic indicators

Household head’s socio-economic indicators have been used elsewhere in modeling

smallholder deforestation in Amazonia, in relation to wealth, and productive practices, among

other characteristics (Brondizio & Siqueira 1997; Godoy 1997; Godoy et al. 1997; Brondizio

1999; Brondizio & al. 2001; Perz 2001b, 2001a), but assumptions regarding the classification

(e.g., small farmer, colonists, caboclos) are taken for granted and little effort is made to

understand how these rural people in fact see themselves. The first group of variables presents

socioeconomic indicators divided by household head’s background and assets. By background

(table 5-1a), we refer to household head’s first occupancy of the homestead, previous and length

of residence in the homestead, as well as age and kinship ties.

161

Many homesteads in the CMER are very old, dating from the rubber boom period, while

more recent new settlements are being opened through sub-division of those old settlements

(Gomes 2001). We have noted that there are recent changes in migration dynamics within the

CMER, as many families constantly seeking out a home with better road access and closer to

cities. Being a first occupant and years of residence in a homestead may give an indication of

household head’s origin and/or identification with the history of the region. As the rubber market

has drastically decreased in the region, we have observed that rubber tapping is often practiced to

a greater extent by older household head’s that have a vast knowledge regarding extraction and

processing techniques, often preferring to tap rubber over some other activity despite market

constraints, while younger household head’s tend to be engaged in other activities, due to a lack

of historical commitment to extractivism (Gomes 2001; Vadjunec et al. nd). We, therefore,

expect that household heads who are first occupant of a homestead with a longer residence in the

reserve, and older household heads should be more prone to define themselves as rubber tappers.

By assets (table 5-1b), we consider a householder access to larger, more expensive

secondary material goods. As individuals in the region are increasingly integrated into regional

and, even global markets, we have also seen important transformations in their lifestyles, having

more access to material goods that until recently were seldom seen in the reserve (e.g.

refrigerator, TV, solar panels, cell phones, electric generators). These changes may directly

influence diet, lifestyle and means of communication in the CMER. For example, until recently,

communication was more based on a collective level, with news being spread via the local

association either through word of mouth or two-way radio. Increasingly, individuals in some

areas now have their own cell phone, thus eliminating the need for collective means of

communication. Changes are also observed in terms of living condition as respondents

162

increasingly buy chainsaws or pay others an hourly rate for the use of it, and we have noted

changes in their housing quality (finished wood houses vs. traditional rubber tapper

construction). With those transformations, rubber tappers may reject the rubber tapper lifestyle

for its perceived backwardness, desiring instead, a seemingly more modern counterpart. We

expect that this increased access to material good will also impact social status, and therefore

may have a negative affect on a respondent’s self-definition as a rubber tapper.

Institutional context indicators

The second group of variables represents institutional context and social organization

indicators. Institutional variables include membership association at the municipal and

community level, participation in the worker’s union, cooperativism, empates, multirão, and

access to credit. Rubber tapper communities in the CMER have several forms of nested

institutional-organizational affiliation structures, operating within and outside their communities.

(Cardoso 1992; Vadjunec 2007). Individuals first institutional affiliation occurs at the

community level as families living close to each other create association, in which important

collective decisions are made related to shared concerns about the community (e.g., maintenance

of varadouros or feeder roads, marketing transportation, health care, and education). A second

level of association affiliation operates at the municipalities compassing the reserve’s territory,

as a strategy to coordinate the reserve management in different municipalities, making the link

between rubber tapper community associations, the Brazilian government and other agencies in

the region.

Other institutional measurements are related to affiliation with institutions not restrict to

the CMER’s residents but direct linked to the extractive reserve roots. Cooperative affiliation, a

more direct market oriented institution, plays an important role for the reserve’s residents, such

as the marketing of extractive goods and helping ease transportation costs. Moreover, the rural

163

workers’ syndicates were historically key entities articulating the initial needs of the rubber

tapper’s movement (Hecht & Cockburn 1989; Paula 1991; Sobrinho 1992), and thus, we,

consider the reserve residents’ affiliation to those institutions.

A major characteristic of the rubber tapper movement in the 1980s was its organizational

capacities and strong sense of community. Living isolated and geographically dispersed in the

forest, they slowly began to organize against the major causes of deforestation that occurred in

the area, and developed a resistance movement by the means of “empates” or stand-offs,

blocking people and machinery with their bodies as a strategy to protect the forest against cattle

ranchers (Paula 1991; Calaça 1993; Almeida 2002). Householders in the CMER are in the core

area where such strategies developed. Indeed, several of the individuals in our sample reported

that they participated in empates, while others, especially younger household heads, have older

family members who were directly involved in or knowledgeable of those historical processes,

which are still referred to in the current day. Another means of mutual collaboration was known

as the mutirão - a still frequent way to help each other at the homestead level, such as clearing

trails, building bridges to facilitate transportation, taking care of a neighbor’s agricultural field in

case of sickness, among other collective tasks.

Participation in such institutions and traditional forms of mutual collaboration is indelibly

related to shared concerns in the CMER that arise due to co-residence in forested areas

traditionally associated with extractivism. Overall, we expect that individual affiliation with

these institutions together with participation on traditional practices of mutual collaboration that

are very important on rubber tapper culture, given their collective nature, should strengthen

traditional livelihoods systems and thus, we expect, will portray a positive influence on an

individual respondent’s self-definition as rubber tapper.

164

Land-use indicators

The third set of indicators is related to resource management, grouped into three main

components of livelihoods systems in the CMER: forest extractivism, annual crops and cattle

ranching. This set of indicators provides a means of measuring the effects of livelihoods changes,

and are expected to have mixed results on an individual self-definition. Extractivist production

(table 5-1c) have been historically important to rubber tappers livelihoods, and is in the core of

the extractive reserve concept (Allegretti 1989; Schwartzman 1989), and thus is expected to be

significant in defining individual’s self-definition as rubber tappers. Recent studies, have

identified livelihood changes in the CMER (e.g., Sassagawa 1999; Gomes 2001; Ehringhaus

2005; Vadjunec 2007). Given that subsistence agriculture has long seen mostly as a subsistence

land use practice among rubber tapper, we measured agriculture in term of actual agricultural

products sold (table 5-1d). Among those changes, small-scale cattle raising represents the most

questionable for what was initially envisioned as a sustainable livelihood system for extractivist

populations. Cattle ranching and pasture-related indicators (table 5-1e) are considered due to its

recent importance as a short-term income source for families as well its contradictory nature of

changing livelihoods with the historical struggle and political discourse of the rubber tapper’s

movement. Given the history of the movement as anti-ranching, today, cattle and pasture

development, in addition to increased commercial agriculture, is likely to constrain and reduce

individual self-definition as rubber tappers.

Location indicators

We also attempt to capture differences through location of households across

municipalities. The reserve is spread out into three municipalities with different histories in the

articulation of the rubber tapper’s movement and current different levels of support for extractive

reserve development initiatives. There are also different ecological zones in the reserve

165

potentially affecting access to forest resources (i.e. some areas do not have access to rubber

and/or Brazil nut). Given these differences, we measured a respondent’s self-definition across

three municipalities, in a attempt explore if they may differentiate across location despite being

within the same extractive reserve. We expect that in the municipality of Assis Brasil, which has

little forest extractive resources, location will have a negative impact on individual’s self-

definition as rubber tappers.

Reserve wide land-use rules

A final group of indicators is about land-use rules in the reserve. The reserve was created

as the main result of the rubber tapper’s movement, forging a new land tenure system with co-

management responsibilities divided between the Brazilian government and the rubber tapper

organizations. As the CMER was created, the Brazilian government along with rubber tappers

created a series of rules combining traditional practices with Brazilian environmental laws which

all the reserve residents have to obey, referred to as the “Utilization Plan.” We collected

individuals knowledge about the utilization plan extensively (see Vadjunec 2007), but for the

purpose of this analysis we measure, only three aspects. First, if the respondent was aware of the

existence of the utilization plan regulating land use in the reserve. Then, we used two more

specific questions related to the most evident transformations we have observed, that is,

increased deforestation for pasture land for cattle raising. We asked if the respondents recognize

the rule that states that they can deforest only 10% of their property. Lastly, if they are aware of

this rule, we asked them if they were aware that out of that 10% permitted, only 5% can be

allocated for pasture creation. This gives evidence if they were in compliance with the rules

created and, in general terms, their commitment to the extractive reserve model as a means of

sustainable development. Despite a household head’s potential knowledge of those rules, we

cannot necessarily assume that they always obey the rules. Evidence, however, exists that even

166

mere knowledge of the rules positively impacts a community, creating social cohesion and

decreasing environmental impacts (Ostrom 1990; Moran & Ostrom 2005). We expect that

respondent’s knowledge about the rules in the reserve should have a positive impact on a

respondent’s self-definition as a rubber tapper.

Logistic Multiple Regression Model

The variable that we used to represent rubber tapper individuals self-definition is a binary

variable. The most appropriate model, in this case, is therefore a binary logistic regression. Such

a model is used in instances of binary variables when the desire is to estimate the probability of

the occurrence of an event (Agresti 1990), or in our case, the probability of household head’s

self-identifying as rubber tapper or not. In our model, Yi is defined so that: 1= self-identification

as being a rubber tapper, and 0=no self-identification as rubber tapper. Logistic regression model

allows estimation of the likelihood of the occurrence of an event expressed as the probability of

the event occurring relative to the probability of the event not occurring, where pi is the

likelihood of the occurrence of the event i for each individual. Logistic regression allows

estimation of coefficients b for explanatory variables X (1…n). The coefficients can be

exponentiated to yield odds ratios which indicate the change in the likelihood of Y=1. Results

from logistic regression thus indicate effects of the independent variables on the likelihood of

self-identifying as a rubber tapper, including the variables which make such self-identification

more likely.

In order to define the final model and minimize the number of variables used that

maximizes the precision of the model, we tested one by one variable until the final model was

found. This allowed us to start with a high number of inter-related variables (explained above)

and systematically eliminate all variables that proved to be insignificant, to give us the best

167

possible regression model for our study. For more detail on the operationalization details of the

dependent and independent variables, see table 5-1.

Results

Analysis of Descriptive Findings

A respondent’s self-definition as a rubber tapper may reflect, among other things, one’s

background as a traditional forest-dweller of a specific socioeconomic class, one’s degree of

participation in the rubber tapper’s institutions and social movement, one’s main livelihood

practices, the degree of integration into market for both extractivist and non-extractivist

production, in addition to one’s recognition of the current land tenure regulation. Table 5-2

presents descriptive statistics for those characteristics among household head’s in the CMER.

We find it surprising that 78 percent of respondents still identify as rubber tappers. Among the

block of variables that assess socio-economic aspects for household head’s background, only

27% of them were the first residents on the property, while the average duration of residence was

over 13 years and the mean age of household heads was 40 years old. These averages suggest

generally older household heads and a relatively long duration of residence; however, the

standard deviations reveal considerable variation among respondents in the sample.

It also shows that some assets related to improved livelihood needs and production

activities are become more common, as over 50% of the individuals surveyed own a finished

wood house and have access to gas for cooking, while over 30% own a chainsaw and a house to

process manioc. Other assets more related to communication that usually depend on surplus

cash, such as the possession of a TV or a phone, are still limited (possessed by less than 15% of

the individuals in the sample). These findings, we argue are important, because they are

relatively new material goods, implying a recent and differentiated socio-economic status for

some rubber tapper families in the reserve.

168

Table 5-2. Descriptive statistics for socioeconomic aspects, institutional context, land-use practices, location and land-use rules, among households in the Chico Mendes Reserve

Variables Mean Standard N deviation

Outcome variable: Self-definition as rubber tapper (0=no, 1 = yes) 0.78 0.41 147 Independent Variables: 1 – Socioeconomic indicators A – Household head’s Background First occupant (0=no, 1 = yes) 0.27 0.45 143 Years of residence 13.17 10.28 148 Age of household head 40.69 13.46 149 Years of schooling of household head 2.5 1.71 149 Previous residence 0.29 0.45 147 Relatives living in this seringal 0.87 0.32 147 B - Assets (0=no, 1 = yes) Household owns a tv 0.11 0.31 148 Household owns gas 0.52 0.5 148 Household owns a refrigerator 0.02 0.16 148 Manioc processor house 0.38 0.48 148 Household owns a solar panel 0.15 0.36 148 Household owns a chainsaw 0.33 0.47 148 Household has a wood house 0.75 0.43 149 Household owns a phone 0.08 0.27 148 2 - Institutional indicators (0=no, 1 = yes) Association at municipal level 0.92 0.26 148 Association at community level 0.62 0.49 148 Association producers cooperative 0.14 0.35 148 Association w/ rural workers syndicate 0.69 0.46 147 Household head participated in empate 0.25 0.43 143 Household participates in multirão 0.76 0.42 143 Household head received gov. credit 0.48 0.5 147 3 - Land-Use Indicators C - Forest extractivism (kg) Rubber tapping (0=no, 1 = yes) 0.41 0.49 146 Total area (hectares) 426.17 303.67 149 Rubber production 142.68 269.91 149 Total number of brazil nut trees * 186.24 286.58 149 Total brazil nut production (kg) 1686.25 2680.94 149 D - Annual crops sold (kg) Rice production sold 248.04 387.83 149 Corn production sold 81 339.43 149

169

Table 5-2 Continued. Bean production sold 162.1 268.04 149 Manioc production sold 173.55 799.35 149 E - Cattle ranching and pasture Raise cattle (0=no, 1 = yes) 0.86 0.34 149 Total number of head of cattle 14.04 17.46 149 Year household started to raise cattle 8.52 7.77 135 Total number of cattle head sold 3.48 9.19 149 Total size of pasture area 8.79 7.62 149 Year household started to make pasture 8.57 7.14 131 Plan for # of cattle in 10 years 84.55 172.09 138 4 - Location Household at Municipalities 1=Xapuri 0.19 0.39 149 2=Brasiléia 0.35 0.48 149 3=Assis Brasil 0.46 0.49 149 5 - Land use rules (0=no, 1 = yes) Knows the utilization plan 0.79 0.4 147 Know the 10% deforestation rule 0.81 0.38 146 Know the 5% pasture rule 0.72 0.44 146 1. Values shown are either proportions (binomial variable) or arithmetic means (continuous variable)

Regarding institutional-organizational context indicators, overall, 60% of household head’s

were affiliated with a grass-roots institutions, excluding cooperatives; 92% were affiliated with

the reserve-wide association, demonstrating the importance of the association in recognizing

individuals as official reserve residents, divvying up land and resources. Individual affiliation

with a cooperative was much lower, only 14%, implying that they access other mechanisms in

marketing products. Nearly 50% of the household head’s had received government access to

credit in some form. This strikes us as somehow surprising, as only recently have rubber tappers

even begun to receive formal government credits. These results imply an increased governmental

recognition for rubber tappers, a result of their continued political coalition and broader

development agenda in the region. In addition, participation in traditional forms of cooperation

were high with 76% of household head’s having participated in a mutirão and 25% having

170

participated in an empate, implying that such households were directly engaged in the movement

for some time, twenty years ago when the last empate took place.

Forest extractivist practices and the intensity of extractivism depend mostly on the size of

land traditionally measured by the number of rubber trails (01 rubber trail = 100 hectares), as

well as resource (rubber and Brazil nut) dispersion in different ecological zones of the reserve

(Vadjunec 2007). Thus, total area of a household showed an average of 400 hectares, or about

four rubber trails per households. Despite this land availability for tapping rubber, only about

40% actually tap rubber, and the average production is about 142 kilos per year, an insignificant

outcome for people that traditionally had their main livelihood economy based on rubber

production. Obviously, a clear sign of the stagnation of the rubber economy in the region. The

number of brazil-nut is the next most important measurement of forest extractivist production,

and individuals are very aware of how many brazil nuts trees they hold as a means of projecting

annual brazil nut production and income, as well as calculating the value of their land. The

average number of brazil nut trees per property was close to 200 trees, while annual production

was over 1600 kilos per household. Overall, forest extractivism indicators showed substantial

standard deviations, indicating differential production, likely to be a result of substantial

variation regarding extractivist resources across different areas of the reserve.

The descriptive statistics also show low means of agricultural production sold, with rice

representing the most important cash crop--with less than 300 kilos sold per household. This

suggests mainly subsistence agriculture, and demonstrates an overall low market link among

respondents based on agricultural production, but standard deviations are also high, implying that

for some individuals agricultural production might represent an important income generator.

Cattle ranching appear as a widespread activity, as 86% of the respondents raise cattle, with an

171

average of 14 heads of cattle and a mean of about 9 hectares of land under pasture per household.

The high percentage of cattle raising combined with the fact that both the number of years since

a individual started to raise cattle, and number of years started to create pasture area average less

than 9 years, indicates that ranching a relatively young activity, having increased substantially

only recently. This is supported by the average household heads plan for cattle in the next ten-

year period, averaging over 80 heads.

Analysis of the Multivariate Regression Model

For a better understanding of the complex interaction between variables, this section

presents the multivariate model in which the variables ultimately were found to be significant in

the model tested. Table 5-3 presents the results of the logistical regression model regarding

respondents self-definition regressed against indicators of household head’s background and

assets, institutional-organizational context, livelihood practices and land-use regulation

indicators.

The first determinant of self-definition involves a household head’s background. In

contrast to our expectation, the odds ratio indicates that individuals that were first occupants of

the homestead were 0.3 times more likely to declare themselves a rubber tapper than those that

are not first occupants. In other words, the first occupant have less chances of self-define as

rubber tapper, as indicated by a odds ratio less than 1. We suspect, homestead turnover is not due

to outsiders coming in, but rather reflects increasing sub-division among family members for

more secure usufruct rights to their land and recognition as a new CMER resident. Even so, most

such young household head’s tends to neglect traditional forms of extractive livelihoods, but may

be linked to extractive cultural identities through their parents’ history and experiences. None of

the other household head’s background variables show significant net effects on individual self-

172

definition, which suggests that the way they define themselves is complex, regardless most of the

background variables measured.

Table 5-3. Multivariable model of household self-definition as rubber tapper regressed on household background, institutional context, land-use practices and regulations in the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve

Variable B Odds Ratios

Wald Chi-Square df Sig.

Intercept -1.884 4.194 1 .041 Household head’s background First occupancy of the homestead No -1.182 0.3 4.647 1 .031 Yes 0.000 . . . Institutional context Affiliation w/ community association No -1.347 0.3 5.001 1 .025 Yes 0.000 . . . Participation in mutirão No 1.390 4.0 4.901 1 .027 Yes 0.000 . . . Land use Total area household landholding (ha) None (ref.) 2.788 4.9 8.019 1 .005 100 < 300 1.189 9.5 1.911 1 .167 300 < 600 0.538 16.2 0.318 1 .573 > 600 0.000 . . . Reserve regulation Knows the utilization plan No 1.000 2.7 3.112 1 .078 Yes 0.000 . . .

Two institutional context variables exert strong effects on a household head’s self-

definition. Individuals affiliated with a community level association, diverging from our

expectation, tend to abandon the traditional notion of rubber tapper, as the odds ratios indicate

that individuals affiliated with community level association were 0.3 times more likely to define

themselves as rubber tappers than those not affiliated. That is, individuals affiliation with the

association tend to decrease the chance of self-definition as rubber tapper. In addition, household

head’s participation in a mutirão shows a significant positive effect: respondents that participated

in a mutirão are 4 times more likely to declare themselves a rubber tapper than those that did not

participate.

173

Land use variables reveal a limited array of significant factors. We expected that land use

practices related to extractivist activities would positively influence individual self-definition as

a rubber tapper, while other predicators related to cattle ranching and pasture would have a

negative effect. Our expectation was not met. The only predictor that exhibits the anticipated

effects was the total land area of the household, a finding that supports arguments that self-

definition is not dependent on land-use practices, but on the size of the land hold. Traditional

land area definition is based on the number of rubber trails in a household’s land holding, but in

a few parts of the reserve (especially in the municipality of Assis Brasil), rubber trees are not

present, and thus this traditional definition is problematic. Individual with areas with 300

hectares or three rubber trail (01 rubber trail = 100 ha) are 4.9 times more likely to declare

themselves as rubber tappers than those where rubber trail is not an appropriate definition of land

measurement. This chance increase according to the size of land holding as individuals with 300-

600 hectares and individuals holding over 600 hectares (or 06 rubber trail) are respectively 9.5

and 16.2 times likely to declare themselves as rubber tappers than those with land not formally

defined based on the number of rubber trails. Although we expected that size of landholding

would be important because it implies more potential extractivist resources available to the land-

user, this effect was not observed when looking at actual land use variables, suggesting that size

of the area – a key factor for extractivist production – is key for household head’s self-definition

as a rubber tapper but does not contribute to support land use practices as a significant predictor

for self-definition.

Household head’s general knowledge about the utilization plan also presents important

significance in their self-definition as rubber tapper. Those individuals that responded that they

knew about the reserve utilization plan were 2.7 times more likely to define themselves as rubber

174

tapper than those who did not know the utilization plan. More detailed knowledge about two

specific rules regarding land use did not show significant net effects on a respondent’s self-

definition

Discussion

These findings bear important implications for (i) understanding of the factors that

differentiate among who self-identifies as rubber tappers and who does not, (ii) the recent history

of the rubber tapper struggle for forest conservation, (iii) the role of institutions and land use

practices on household head livelihoods improvement and (iv) policies for extractive reserves as

an important environmentally sound strategy in the region.

The multivariate model provides empirical support that reveals only a few factors exert

significant effects on a household head’s self-definition, showing some support for what is

commonly expected, but more importantly not supporting general expectations of what a rubber

tapper is expected to be in the region, according to their historical social movement and

traditional livelihoods trajectories. With the exception of being the first occupant, socioeconomic

factors did not exert significant effects on respondent self-definition, contrary to our expectation.

Yet, first occupancy, as observed in table 5-3 reveals a significance contrary to what we expected

as being the first occupant increases the likelihood of those households heads not considering

themselves a rubber tapper.

Homesteads are traditionally older-aged settlements (Gomes 2001). But we have observed

since the reserve’s establishment, especially on those areas close to cities, that old homesteads

have been increasingly sub-divided for the formation of new homesteads by family members.

This might represent a shift suggesting that new occupants may have the tendency to reject

traditional notions of rubber tapper definition. New families may be opting for a “modern”

175

lifestyle following general trends of the region, refusing the idea of a ‘traditional lifestyle’

imposed on them by the traditional and narrow historic definition of a rubber tapper.

Only two out of seven institutional variables showed significance in individual

respondent self-definition as presented on table 5-3, with one (affiliation with the community

level association) working against traditional rubber tapper definition, as the likelihood of

household heads declaring themselves as rubber tapper was higher for those not affiliated. This

finding seems to represent a rupture to traditional rubber tapper definition in the core of the

smallest social organization structure that was very important to the coalition of the well-known

tapper’s movement for land and social justice merely twenty years ago. It is easy to see the early

success of these organizational processes and expect that this is maintained in the core of their

social structure. But, with the creation of the reserve their main goal (right for land) was finally

reached, and their agenda as a social group, residents of the reserve, appears to have shifted,

becoming more about development and less about the history, unity and success of the social

movement (Ehringhaus 2005). In many instances the real or historic leaders of the movement

have left the reserve, participating instead in political discussions outside of the reserve.

Vadjunec (2007) cites increasing dissatisfaction of residents with the community level

associations, suggesting that these associations are no longer articulating the needs of traditional

rubber tappers. The rubber tapper movement is very alive on the development agenda in Acre

with supporters from NGOs and government institutions. But residents of the reserve, by

refusing a self-definition as a rubber tapper in the bottom of the diverse social structures, seem to

challenge those institutions that historically supported and capitalized on the image of the

traditional rubber tapper – an definition that seemed more appropriate to win over policy makers

by emphasizing the reserve and the movement in terms of a conservation initiative, rather than a

176

economic development initiative. As expected, participation in a multirão has a positive impact

on respondent self-definition as rubber tapper, suggesting that rubber tapper definition is more

tied to sources of social community building for mutual practical collaboration than for their

current formal institutions at the community level.

Livelihoods changes seem to be the obvious indicators revealing the loss of traditional

lifestyles among the reserve residents. Yet, not one land-use indicator measured exerted

significance in a household head’s self-definition. In contrast to our expectations, neither

traditional land use practices (rubber and brazil nut extractivism), nor commercial agriculture,

nor cattle ranching were important in a household head’s self-definition as a rubber tapper. That

is to say, individual self-definition cannot be predicted by current land-use activities. Despite the

widespread decline of rubber tapping or recently increased small-scale cattle ranching practices,

the category of rubber tapper continues to be culturally important, as descriptive analyses show

that over 70% of the individuals interviewed consider themselves as rubber tapper. That is to say,

despite livelihood transformations underway, most respondents still refer to themselves as rubber

tappers, illustrating the cultural importance of the title, and perhaps the perceived political

benefits that go along with it. If rubber tapping can arguably be linked to rubber tapper historical

definition, is seems to be problematic to consider individuals that do not tap rubber as rubber

tappers, today. In fact, one important challenge for the rubber tappers today is the recasting of

their traditional definition during a time practically devoid of rubber, followed by increasing

cattle ranching practices.

Cattle ranching among rubber tapper are neither a fabricated argument nor outsiders’

speculation against traditional perception of rubber tapper. Thus, it appears as the main factor in

this contrasting transformation and one that easily finds opponents. In fact, much of the initial

177

success of the rubber tapper’s movement came from not being a cattle rancher, or being exactly

the opposite of a cattle rancher. Rubber tappers were the foil to cattle ranchers - it was a

powerful way to create political allies with environmentalists and among the international

community. The inspirations behind the rubber tapper movement against encroaching cattle

ranching in Acre are well expressed in their cultural manifestation involving music, religion, and

art, as can be seen in the rubber tapper anthem.1 Cattle ranching expansion among the CMER

residents has not been formally addressed by governmental institutions either to discuss

potentially better ways to enforce current regulation or to sustainably manage inside the CMER.

Leaders of the reserve’s resident associations are open to discussing the issue, and possess a

strong sense of reality about the situation; as a leader from Brasiléia says:

“Today, people have different visions. It is not that same vision of the trade unionists from 20 years ago. The vision of some officials in our association is different. They are sons of the native or historic rubber tappers, but have different vision of their father. So, this is a contradiction. Even more, today almost everybody is in favor of the raising of livestock. We can no longer be against cattle - this time is over. All of us have cattle. What we can say now is that we need to create new rules for cattle raising and pasture creation inside the reserve, we intend to do this; or better yet, we need to do this. We need proper technology in order to modify the kind of cattle we raise, not only with the idea of raising cattle for sale. Beyond this, we need these animals for pulling cargo and for milk for our children. Our leaders stayed very quiet during this entire time, and extractivists tried to conceal what is going on, what they were doing, creating pasture behind their secondary parcels. Some directors of the associations still avoid the question when someone asks them, how is deforestation being controlled inside the reserve. I am against deforesting large clearings, but in those areas that are already cleared, let’s raise cattle. The situation will only change if a plan provides strong economic alternatives for extractivists, only this will decrease deforestation for pasture on the CMER.

The results in cattle ranching and pasture areas indicators lead us to believe that it is not

seen by individual respondents as problematic for their self-definition as rubber tappers.

However, the analyses show that the likelihoods of residents to consider themselves as rubber

1 The rubber tapper anthem (hino do seringueiro): Let’s give value to the rubber tappers/ let’s give value to this nation/ for it is through their work/ that cars and airplanes tires are made/ Bicycle tires are not made of cheese/ It is not cattle leather that truck tires are made of/ it is not cattle horns that erase letters, no/ these are all products of rubber, made by our hands. (By J.S. Araújo - First president of the Rubber Tapper National council).

178

tappers is higher when they know the existence of the utilization plan, although variables

measuring specific rules about cattle ranching and pasture regulation (e.g. size of land allowed

for deforestation and for pasture) did not show significance in shaping individuals self-definition.

Cattle ranching remains a dirty word in the CMER, being politically sensitive and can be a

source of conflict among neighboring, and regulation of cattle raising and pasture area has been

part of a debate among individuals with different development perspectives. During fieldwork,

we experienced some household head’s engaged on cattle raising not willing to talk about cattle

ranching related questions, while few others, not engaged in such activity, demonstrated strong

opposition for their neighbors involvement with it. In this context, pasture lands often do not

surround the house, and can be distributed in very different parts of one’s landholding. Those

respondents with a greater tendency to expand ranching, knowing the rules limiting the

expansion of pasture areas, tend to distribute pasture land in different parts of the colocação with

no continuing pasture areas. This makes it more unlikely for a landholder to be penalized. In fact,

this corroborates the argument that individuals respondents are indeed conscientious about

ranching and land-use regulations within the reserve and the political issues that cattle ranching

carry, contrasting with the lack of significance observed in the model. Some household head’s

defend more strict enforcement of the current regulation measured by overall size allowed for

deforestation, while others defend a more direct regulation about cattle, for instance controlling

the number of heads a householder may be allowed to hold. Land use regulations directly related

to cattle raising (5% of the overall 10% allowed) are increasing rejected by individual

respondents more engaged in cattle ranching activities, showing a trend that cattle herds will

continue to grow if dependent on a individual’s will.

179

There are current contrasting perspectives among individuals. We interviewed an older

household head’s that has lived in the same rubber estate all his life and is becoming part of a

minority still linked to rubber tapping. His connection is expressed not only by his significant

rubber production, but also by a profound tie to this activity in a much more symbolic than

material relation. His tie to extractivism may explain the absence of cattle ranching in his

settlement, and his expressed lack of a plan in regards to raising cattle. It is notorious that new

generations of household head’s are well aware of the laborious hard work of rubber tapping

practices and, more importantly, its seemingly poor economic return, experienced by their

fathers or other family members. As one younger household head’s (and son of a rubber tapper)

explained, “Who wants to get up at four in the morning to tap rubber, in the dark, with all of the

wild animals and the snakes? I would rather be outside in the sun in my pasture.” Cattle herds

appear as an attractive option that provides liquefiable assets and perhaps status among

community members.

Local development approach, as evidenced on the “forest government” concept of

“Florestania” or forest citizenship, assume that cultural values have priorities over material

factors in determining livelihood options for the future, and that the traditional perception of

rubber tappers, traditionally conservationist, guarantees the viability of the extractivist economy.

Nevertheless, the traditional values shaping rubber tapper definition are at first rooted in their

historical material conditions and not the opposite as is enforced in local development agenda

which builds on traditional rubber tapper definition serving to legitimate the political movement

and current governmental agenda as ‘being green’. In this sense, cultural values alone cannot be

used as a guarantee for conservation in the Extractive Reserve. Even though rubber tappers today

still have a generally pro-conservation mindset, it is idealist to believe that their traditional

180

culture per se can be translated into conservationist practices. Their pro-conservation culture and

values can and do change with changes in material condition for subsistence. As this analysis

shows, most of their social organization values that were very important for rubber tappers

definition twenty years ago are not influencing their perception as a rubber tapper today, because

values are not static and individuals are changing their values to adapt to new socioeconomic

conditions, as well as new wants and needs. It is not to say that their definition is shaped in term

of solely their economic condition.

The apparent tension between a pro-forest government and the maintenance of cattle as big

business, we argue produces a sort of local schizophrenia, where cattle culture and forest culture

can exist side by side, as evidenced by this year’s Expo Acre (a regional cattle and agricultural

exhibition) that featured an exhibition of genetically superior cattle next to a replica of the house

where Chico Mendes was murdered, in an exhibition celebrating the history of the rubber

tapper’s movement on the 20th anniversary of Chico Mendes murder. If government and policy

makers can envision these land-uses side-by-side, it is no wonder that rubber tapper themselves

find it easy to justify such radical land-use changes while still incorporating them into an

extractivist culture. Yet, cowboy culture dominates rural Acre today, and thus has a direct

influence on the reserve residents. The music on the radio is dominated by country music, the

night clubs in the cities portray the cowboy life-style as a much wanted and well-respected social

status. Small businesses in rural Acre focus on the demands of agropastoral activities. And the

mere trip to the city from the forest reveals the extent to which cattle dominates the landscape. In

the imagination and within the media messages bombarding the rural population in Acre, the

country lifestyle is bigger and better than the forest lifestyle.

181

Conclusions

Despite an attempt to explain individuals self-definition as rubber tappers based on a wide

set of land-use, institutional and livelihood variables, results show that only a few were

significant as seen in table 5-3. Our attempt to measure individual self-definition is the result of

prolonged reflection about rapidly transforming landscapes and livelihoods witnessed by the

authors while fieldwork was being conducted. Perhaps, issues such as self-definition cannot be

measured quantitatively, as our qualitative data shows the complexity the livelihood issues

facing rubber tappers today. Yet, we still find this exercise valuable in understanding the sheer

complexity of a historically marginalized and misunderstood group. What it means to be a rubber

tapper today is a complex question with a mix of rationality and subjectivity, involving

affirmation with historically constructed trajectories and challenged with contrasting

development circumstances as livelihood issues continue to emerge. Cattle raising, for example,

as a historically contrasting practices, should not be seen as a rupture from or within traditional

rubber tapper definition, as this option generally has a positive impact on a household’s

socioeconomic status. Instead of traditional value abandonment, it reflects a rational decision

based on the current best available option for their economic improvement.

Socio-economic conditions and social services have improved substantially since the

establishment of the CMER. Some indicators not measured in the analyses could also affect a

respondent self-definition. Transportation, family education, and road opening facilitating market

links for the residents are part of these improvements. Today, kids and teens almost all have

access to basic schooling and are, for the most part, literate. This is in stark contrast to their

parents, the majority of whom are illiterate. Such changes will no doubt continue to reshape

rubber tapper definition in the future.

182

Most research on land-use change takes issues of individual self-definition for granted. To

our knowledge, the majority of research in the CMER starts with the assumption that the

reserve’s residents are indeed rubber tappers. In order for future conservation and development

initiatives to be successful, we need a better understanding of what ties residents of the CMER

together. We argue that development policy needs to be designed with flexible definitions of

rubber tapper in mind. NGO’s and government policy that focuses solely on extractivism

development, though important, may be out of touch with the complexity of current land-uses

and livelihood preferences of today’s rubber tapper.

The rubber tapper seems to have a stereotype that is still very much labeled by ‘other,’

and there has been little attention to how their current livelihood systems and socio-economic

conditions challenge this traditional view. In the 1980s, the rubber tapper movement and allies

mobilized the global community committed to preserving the environment, in order to ensure

their own land and livelihood rights. While we are not arguing that their social movement is or

was in any way ‘false,’ by fighting a global fight for the forest, rubber tappers may have

unwittingly created for themselves a very limited definition based on land-use. Such activities as

tapping rubber and collecting brazil nuts, admittedly sustainable or green, are inserted in their

values as well as in their basic identification: the rubber tapper. Thus, the environmental

definition was imposed on or inserted within the definition of a rubber tapper, without denying,

confirming a mutual influence between the local and the global.

The Extractive Reserve system was an expression of a multifaceted mosaic of social

players of great diversity whose rationale can be reconstructed by recognizing that they share

similar problems, despite their differences and overall goals. But the problems faced by rubber

tappers in the past (land security) are not the same as today. Their needs have changed, yet many

183

of their historical external supporters remain centered on the same historical issue, environmental

protection. We argue that rubber tappers are and remain concerned with environmental issues,

but their major problem today is centered on the socioeconomic development that has been

lacking within the Extractive Reserves. Thus, a lot of assumptions we make regarding what

defines a rubber tapper reflects a historical moment that does not necessarily reflect reserve

residents and their development perspectives today. The notion of rubber tapper strengthened in

the 1980s is still very alive and in several aspects legitimate, but has continued to evolve and

today may be unrealistic, transcending local realities. As rubber tappers agenda in these twenty

years since Chico Mendes has evolved from one centered on the struggle for land and social

justice to sustained socioeconomic improvement, their past image may be called into question

and potentially criticized by their historical allies. It is therefore important to understand how

rubber tappers define themselves today if we are to ensure the success of the Extractive Reserve

tomorrow.

184

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS:

The overarching goal of this dissertation has been to address critical questions, concerns,

and criticisms regarding the experience of ERs as a conservation and development tool in the

Brazilian Amazon, and in so doing to integrate core themes: the evolution of the ER as a people-

based conservation policy; changing livelihood conditions and natural resource management

practices; deforestation and land-use patterns; and the impact of historical-cultural livelihood

practices on rubber tappers’ self-definition today. These research issues were addressed in the

four research papers comprising this dissertation.

The first paper of this dissertation (Chapter 2) provided a region-wide analysis of the

evolution of ERs over the past two decades, exploring how the ER model has expanded and how

political and regional development dynamics have affected ER policy – either favoring or

restricting the establishment of ERs. In the first wave states, both Rondônia and Acre have

placed a significant percentage of their territory under ERs. The status of ERs in Acre appears to

be solid, in terms of territory and political support while in Rondônia, it is stagnated in growth

and there is a profound lack of government support for ER. Rondônia’s state reserves may be the

most paradigmatic in their application of the model after twelve years; a typical case of struggle

between the economic development and environmental protection camps, in which the winner is

usually determined by the group that has more political weight. The situation in the second wave

states looks promising if recent advances continue in coming years; it is very likely they will.

Pará and Amazonas, are far from reaching some of the first wave states in percentage of land

under ERs, but have demonstrated a consistent process of establishing ERs since the early 2000s,

representing the trend for continuing growth of ERs areas.

185

ERs as a public policy is widely considered one of the options to simultaneously decrease

deforestation rates in the region while responding to social group demands, especially in

development frontier areas. The creation of ERs should not be seen as static or synonymous of

forest protection per se. The success of creating a new ER cannot be seen by both social

movement and government as an end of an end in itself, as have been the case with several ER

implemented. Three elements should be essential to all ER efforts: 1) alternatives for

improvement of economic and social well-being of ER residents; 2) a strong monitoring process;

and 3) an active and continuous social movement coalition. The general focus of both social

movement and government institutions has been to create new ERs areas, and pay less attention

to socio-economic conditions within ERs. The adoption of cattle ranching among residents of the

Chico Mendes reserve addressed in the following chapters is an example of the lack of public

policy supporting sustainable economic practices for ER residents. This perspective need to be

reviewed in order to guarantee sustainable future for ERs in Amazonia.

The second paper (Chapter 3) provided a comparative analysis of cattle ranching adoption

among colonist smallholders and forest extractivists in the Amazon, exploring why livelihood

strategies among a variety of social actors in a highly heterogeneous socioeconomic region are

converging on a single activity: cattle ranching. Showing similar trends regarding the growth of

cattle husbandry in Xapuri (Acre) and Uruará (Pará), the results suggest a regional push toward

cattle ranching expansion among colonist smallholders and forest extractivists in the Brazilian

Amazon. Cattle ranching among colonist and forest extractivists are driven by market forces, but

also have distinct political development contexts. Smallholder colonists present a more

diversified economy with greater market links in which cattle ranching is consolidated as a

economic practice, while forest extractivists, regardless of the potential of forest products to

186

improve local livelihoods, have more limited economies in which cattle represent a option under

an uncertain economy, and they have not yet confronted the political and development

controversies of cattle raising in Extractive Reserves. Cattle ranching among forest extractivists

in Xapuri are a challenge and may represent an opportunity to promote a broader debate to

review forest resources co-management pacts by government institutions and grass-root

organizations for Extractive Reserve administration in the very place where it was negotiated

twenty years ago.

The third paper (Chapter 4) expanded the discussion beyond issues of cattle ranching

adoption, to consider deforestation issues by remote sensing analysis to household surveys

addressing the question of what are the dominant land-use and livelihoods practices of

extractivists in the CMER and how are they changing. The six seringais examined are

undergoing rapid land-use and land-cover changes with cattle and agriculture as the main drivers

of such change. As of yet, however, none of these six seringais have surpassed the 10 % limit set

on the amount of allowable deforestation. Although some communities may surpass allowable

deforestation limits in the near future, the rate as compared to outside ER areas should still be

seen as a measure of environmental success for the ER system. At the time of the creation of the

CMER in 1990, residents depended more heavily on traditional non-timber forest product

extraction including Brazil-nut collection and latex production. Traditional land-use activities are

currently undergoing rapid changes in the CMER. Rubber tapping has gone from being

historically one of the most important land-use activities, to the least important making up less

than nine percent of a household’s total income on average. Cattle and market agriculture are and

will likely remain part of a rubber tapper’s land-use system in the CMER, and consequently need

to be addressed realistically by local institutions and decision-makers. Cattle, however, remains a

187

“dirty” word in the CMER. Policy directions for the CMER need to address sustainable pasture

management, as well as a serious re-investment in NTFP marketing and development. The

debate over rubber tappers and cattle husbandry has seeped into the press, motivating pointed

criticism and questions about the sustainability of the CMER. These critics have shown clear

bias against rubber tappers that break with their traditional identity, presenting the case of cattle

ranching in the CMER as if it is a phenomenon exclusive to ERs rather than a generalized

economic and environmental problem in the Brazilian Amazon.

Some critics have even used this debate to question the viability overall of the ER model in

Amazonia. The murder of Chico Mendes has been enlarged to equate cattle with “evil”

livelihoods. As a result of such caricaturizing, the mere idea that the rubber tappers championed

by Mendes are now raising cattle themselves is met with little enthusiasm by some proponents

and supporters of ER concept.1 It must be remembered that Chico Mendes and the rubber tappers

may have been fighting for the forest, but also, and more importantly, for a right to both land

security and improved rubber tappers’ well-being.

The fourth and final paper (Chapter 5) provided an analysis of rubber tapper identity,

exploring which institutional, cultural, and land-use factors currently shape rubber tapper self-

identification in the face of their historical-cultural trajectories and current livelihood practices.

Results show that only a few variables were significant in explaining household self-identity.

Larger size of land-holding, more knowledge of management rules, and participation in

community activities make it more likely to identify as a rubber tapper, while more recent 1For example, while doing fieldwork in Acre, I was a bit concerned about “where” and “with whom” I would start to discuss my research topic due to it politically sensitive nature. I gave presentations for both local and international NGOs branch offices as well as at various seminars at the Federal University of Acre (UFAC). An international NGO, with a local branch in Rio Branco (Acre), saw a need and opportunity to develop a proposal regarding cattle ranching expansion in the CMER. I was contracted as a consultant to address cattle ranching within the Reserve as part of a project to review regulations regarding cattle raising and pasture management initiatives in the reserve. My final report, despite being well received at the local branch, was excluded from the annual report at the international office in Washington, DC, and no funding was allocated to the proposal presented.

188

occupancy in the CMER and involvement in the official movement have a negative impact on

identifying as a rubber tapper. Cattle raising should not be seen as a rupture from or within

traditional rubber tapper definition, as this option generally has a positive impact on a

household’s socioeconomic status. Instead of identity abandonment, it reflects a rational decision

based on the current best available option for their economic improvement.

Most research on livelihoods change takes issues of identity for granted. To our

knowledge, the majority of research in the CMER starts with the assumption that the reserve’s

residents are indeed rubber tappers. In order for future conservation and development initiatives

to be successful, we need a better understanding of what ties residents of the CMER together.

Otherwise, development policy may be out of touch with the complexity of current land-uses and

livelihood preferences of today’s ER residents.

The stereotype of the traditional rubber tapper is still very much labeled by “other,” and

there has been little attention to how their current livelihood systems and socio-economic

conditions challenge the traditional perceptions of rubber tappers. In the 1980s, the rubber tapper

movement was seeking new allies and fostered the construction of new images; as a result, they

were able to mobilize a global community committed to preserving the environment, and ensure

the protection of their own land and livelihood rights. Although we are not arguing that this

definition is or was in anyway false, it now seems that rubber tappers, by making their struggles

a global fight for the forest, may have unwittingly frozen their definition in time. This

“environmental” image was inserted in the definition of a rubber tapper, revealing the cross-

influence between the local and the global. Rubber tapper definition is a complex and ever-

changing idea, participatively created over time. Although the definition was formed publicly at

189

the height of the rubber tappers’ movement in the 1980s, it is continuously evolving as new land-

use and livelihood issues emerge.

The Extractive Reserve concept was an expression of a diverse mosaic of social players

recognizing that they share similar problems, despite their political differences and varied goals.

Yet, many of the rubber tappers historical external supporters remain centered on the same

historical issue: environmental protection. We argue that rubber tappers are and remain

concerned with environmental issues, but their major problem today is centered on the

socioeconomic development that has been lacking within the Extractive Reserves. Thus, many

assumptions we make regarding what defines a rubber tapper reflects a historical moment in time

that does not necessarily concord with the development perspectives of CMER residents today.

The definition which strengthened in the 1980s is still very alive and in several aspects

legitimate, but has continued to evolve in the past twenty years, bringing up new issues that may

be called into question and potentially criticized by rubber tappers historical allies. It is therefore

important to understand how rubber tappers define themselves today if we are to ensure the

success of the Extractive Reserve tomorrow.

190

APPENDIX A CORRELATION ANALYSIS

Table A-1. Analysis of relations between outcome and explanatory variables for socioeconomic aspects of households in the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve

1 - Socioeconomic Indicators: Household self-definition (%) A - Household background variables No Rubber

Tapper Rubber Tapper

Total

First occupant of the homestead ** No 14.6 85.4 100 Yes 38.5 61.5 100 Years of residence < 10 20.9 79.1 100 10 < 20 21.3 78.7 100 > 20 21.2 78.8 100 Age household head (year) < 30 17.9 82.1 100 30 < 50 21.3 78.7 100 > 50 24.2 75.8 100 Schooling of households head None 16.7 83.3 100

1 < 4 22.0 78.0 100 4 < 8 25.0 75.0 100

Previous residence In the reserve 18.6 81.4 100 Out the reserve 25.0 75.0 100 Relatives living in this seringal No 11.1 88.9 100 Yes 21.9 78.1 100

B - Assets variables Household own a tv No 20.6 79.4 100 Yes 20.0 80.0 100 Household own gas No 18.3 81.7 100 Yes 22.7 77.3 100 Household own a refrigerator No 19.7 80.3 100 Yes 50.0 50.0 100 Manioc processor house No 18.9 81.1 100 Yes 23.2 76.8 100 Household own a solar panel No 21.0 79.0 100 Yes 18.2 81.8 100 Household own a chainsaw No 20.6 79.4 100 Yes 20.4 79.6 100 Household has a wood house No 13. 86.5 100 Yes 23.6 76.4 100 Household own a phone + No 22.2 77.8 100 Yes 0.0 100.0 100 + p < .10; * p< .05; ** p < .01

191

Table A-2. Analysis of relations between outcome and explanatory variables for institutional context aspects of households in the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve

2 - Institutional context indicators Household self-definition (%) Variables: No Rubber

Tapper Rubber Tapper

Total

Assoc. at municipal level No 20.0 80.0 100 Yes 21.3 78.7 100 Assoc. at community level + No 13.0 87.0 100 Yes 26.1 73.9 100 Assoc. w/ producers cooperative* No 24.0 76.0 100 Yes 4.8 95.2 100 Rural workers syndicate No 18.2 81.8 100 Yes 22.8 77.2 100 Participation in empate No 21.9 78.1 100 Yes 22.2 77.8 100 Participation in multirão No 28.1 71.9 100 Yes 20.2 79.8 100 Household received gov. credit No 20.5 79.5 100 Yes 20.8 79.2 100

+ p < .10; * p< .05; ** p < .01

192

Table A-3. Analysis of relations between outcome and explanatory variables for land-use aspects of households in the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve

3 - Land-use indicators Household self-definition (%) A - Forest extractivism variables No Rubber

Tapper Rubber Tapper

Total

Rubber tapping ** Yes 10.0 90.0 100 No 28.6 71.4 100 Total area ** none 58.8 41.2 100 100 < 300 22.0 78.0 100 300 < 600 12.5 87.5 100 > 600 9.7 90.3 100 Total rubber production * none 27.7 72.3 100 < 300 14.3 85.7 100 > 300 4.0 96.0 100 Total number of brazil nut trees * None 40.0 60.0 100 < 100 19.3 80.7 100 100 < 300 9.7 90.3 100 > 300 12.5 87.5 100 Total brazil nut production + none 29.3 70.7 100 < 1000 23.1 76.9 100 > 1000 12.7 87.3 100

B - Annual crops sold variables Rice production sold none 19.0 81.0 100 < 1000 23.6 76.4 100 > 1000 25.0 75.0 100 Corn production sold none 19.8 80.2 100 < 1000 33.3 66.7 100 > 1000 0.0 100.0 100 Bean production sold none 18.6 81.4 100 < 1000 24.1 75.9 100 > 1000 33.3 66.7 100 Manioc production sold none 23.9 76.1 100 < 1000 12.5 87.5 100 > 1000 0.0 100.0 100

C - Cattle and pasture variables Raise cattle No 15.8 84.2 100 Yes 21.9 78.1 100 Year household started to raise cattle None 15.8 84.2 100 < 10 16.0 84.0 100 10 < 20 28.2 71.8 100 > 20 33.3 66.7 100

193

Table A-3. Continued 3 - Land-use indicators Household self-definition (%)

C - Cattle and pasture variables Total number of head of cattle None 15.8 84.2 100 < 20 19.6 80.4 100 > 20 29.0 71.0 100 Total number of cattle head sold None 21.3 78.7 100 < 10 19.2 80.8 100 > 10 37.5 62.5 100 Year household started to make pasture none 20.0 80.0 100 < 10 19.3 80.7 100 10 < 20 24.4 75.6 100 > 20 23.1 76.9 100 Total size of pasture area (ha) none 20.0 80.0 100 < 10 19.2 80.8 100 10 < 20 23.7 76.3 100 > 20 40.0 60.0 100 Plan for # of cattle in 10 years none 0.0 100.0 100 < 50 21.6 78.4 100 50 < 100 18.2 81.8 100 > 100 20.6 79.4 100 + p < .10; * p< .05; ** p < .01

Table A-4. Analysis of relations between outcome and explanatory variables for location of

households in the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve 4 - Location indicator Household self-definition (%) Variable: No Rubber

Tapper Rubber Tapper

Total

Household at municipalities * Xapuri 3.8 96.2 100 Brasiléia 17.0 83.0 100 Assis Brasil 30.9 69.1 100

+ p < .10; * p< .05; ** p < .01

194

Table A-5. Analysis of relations between outcome and explanatory variables for households’ knowledge about land-use regulation in the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve

5 - Land use rules indicators Household self-definition (%) Variables: No Rubber

Tapper Rubber Tapper

Total

Knows the utilization plan + Yes 17.9 82.1 100 No 33.3 66.7 100 Know the 10% deforestation rule Yes 21.0 79.0 100 No 22.2 77.8 100 Know the 5% pasture rule * Yes 17.0 83.0 100 No 32.5 67.5 100

+ p < .10; * p< .05; ** p < .01 …

195

APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRE USED IN THE CHICO MENDES EXTRACTIVE RESERVE

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

LIST OF REFERENCES

Achard, F., Eva, H. D., Stibig, H. J., Mayaux, P., Gallego, J., Richards, T. & Malingreau, J. P. (2002) Determination of deforestation rates of the world’s humid tropical forests. Science 297: 999-1002.

Adams, W. M. 2004 Against Extinction: The Story of Conservation. London: Earthscan.

Agrawal, A. & Gibson, C. C. (2001) Communities and the environment: ethnicity, gender, and the state in community-based conservation. Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press

Alcorn, J. (1992) Indigenous agroforestry strategies meeting farmers’ needs. In: Alternatives to Deforestation: Steps Toward Sustainable Use of the Amazon Rain Forest, ed. A. A. Anderson, pp. 141-148. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Alcorn, J. B. & Lynch, O. J. (1992) Remnant Forests. BioScience 42: 397-402.

Aldrich, S. P., Walker, R. T., Arima, E. Y., Caldas, M. M., Browder, J. O. & Perz, S. (2006) Land-cover and land-use change in the Brazilian Amazon: Smallholders, ranchers, and frontier stratification. Economic Geography 82: 265-288.

Allegretti, M. H. (1989) Reservas extrativistas: uma proposta de desenvolvimento da floresta amazônica. Pará Desenvolvimento 25: 2-29.

Allegretti, M. H. (1990) Extractive reserves: An alternative for reconciling development and environmental conservation in Amazonia. In: Alternatives to Deforestation: Steps toward Sustainable Use of the Amazonia Rain Forest, ed. A. B. Anderson, pp. 252-264. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Allegretti, M. H. (1994) Reservas extrativistas: Parâmetros para uma Política de Desenvolvimento Sustentável na Amazônia. In: O Destino da Floresta: Reservas Extrativistas e desenvolvimento Sustentável na Amazônia, ed. R. Arndt, pp. 17-47. Rio de Janeiro, RJ: Dumará.

Allegretti, M. H. (1995a) The Amazon And Extracting Activities. In: Brazilian Perspectives on Sustainable Development of the Amazon Region, ed. M. C. Godt & I. Sachs, pp. 157-174. Paris: UNESCO.

Allegretti, M. H. (1995b) Policies for the use of renewable natural resources: The Amazonian region and extractive activities. In: Extractivism in the Brazilian Amazon: Perspectives on Regional Development, ed. M. Clüsener-Godt & I. Sachs, pp. 14-33. MAB Digest Nr. 18, Paris: MAB-UNESCO.

Allegretti, M. H. (2002) A Construção Social de Políticas Ambientais: Chico Mendes e o Movimento dos Seringueiros. Doctoral Dissertation, Centro de Desenvolvimento Sustentável/Universidade de Brasília, Brasília, Brazil.

213

Allegretti, M. H. & Schmink, M. forthcoming When Social Movement Proposals Become Policy: Experiments in Sustainable Development in Brazilian Amazonia. In Rural Social Movements in Latin America: Organizing for Sustainable Livelihoods (ed. C. D. Deere & S. R. Frederick). Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida.

Allegretti, M. H. & Schwartzman, S. (1989) Extractive reserves: a sustainable development alternative for Amazonia: Report to the WWF, Project US-478.

Almeida, A. W. B. (1995) Carajás: a guerra dos mapas. Belém, Pará: Editora Supercores.

Almeida, M. B. d. (2002) The Politics of Amazonian Conservation: The Struggles of Rubber Tappers. The Journal of Latin American Anthropology 7: 170-219.

Almeida, O. (ed.) (1996) A Evolução da Fronteira Amazônica: Oportunidades para o Desenvolvimento Sustentável. Porto Alegre: Edições Caravela.

Amazon Press. (2001) Ibama quer transformar 10% da Amazônia em reservas: Report [www document]. URL www.amazonpress.com.br.

Amigos da Terra. (2005) Incendio Ameaça a Reserva Chico Mendes: Report [www document]. URL www.amazonia.org.br

Anderson, A. B., ed (1990) Alternatives to Deforestation: Steps Toward Sustainable Use of the Amazon Rain Forest. New York: Columbia University Press.

Anderson, A. B. (1992a) Land-use strategies for successful extractive economies in Amazonia. Advances in Economic Botany 9: 67-77.

Anderson, A. B. (1992b) Land-Use Strategies for Successful Extractive Economies in Amazonia. In: Non-Timber Products From Tropical Forests: Evaluation of a Conservation and Development Strategy, ed. D. C. Nepstad & S. Schwartzman, pp. 67-78. New York: The New York Botanical Garden.

Anderson, A. B. (1994) Extrativismo Vegetal e Reservas Extrativistas. In: O Destino da Floresta: Reservas Extrativistas e desenvolvimento Sustentável na Amazônia, ed. R. Arndt, pp. 227-247. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Dumará.

Ankersen, T. & Barnes, G. (2004) Inside the polygon: Emerging community tenure systems and forest resource extraction. In: Working Forests in the Neotropics: Conservation Through Sustainable Management,? ed. D. J. Zarin, J. R. R. Alavalapati, F. E. Putz & M. Schmink, pp. 156-177. New York: Columbia University Press.

Arima, E., Barreto, P. & Brito, M. (2006) Cattle Ranching in the Amazon: trends and implications for enviromental conservation. Belém: Imazon.

Asner, G. P., Knapp, D. E., Broadbent, E. N., Oliveira, P. J. C., Keller, M. & Silva, J. N. (2005) Selective logging in the Brazilian Amazon. Science 310: 480-482.

214

Bakx, K. (1988) From Proletarian to Peasant: Rural Transformation in the State of Acre, 1870-1986. The Journal of Development Studies 24; 141-160.

Barbosa, L. C. (2000) The Brazilian Amazon Rainforest: Global Ecopolitics, Development, and Democracy. New York: University Press of America.

Barbosa, R. I. & Fearnside, P. M. (1996) Pasture burning in Amazonia: Dynamics of residual biomass and the storage and release of aboveground carbon. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres 101: 25847-25857.

Barnham, B. L. & Coomes, O. T. (1996) Prosperity’s Promise:The Amazon Rubber Boom and Distorted Economic Development. Boulder: Westview Press.

Barreto, P., Souza, J., Carlos , Noguerón, R., Anderson, A. & Salamão, R. (2005) Pressão humana na floresta Amazônica Brasileira. Belém: WRI-Imazon.

Becker, B. K., Miranda, M. & Machado, L. O. (1990) Fronteira amazônica: questões sobre a gestão do território. Brasília, DF: Editora UnB.

Becker, M. (2004) Peasant Identity, Worker Identity: Multiple Modes of Rural Consciousness in Highland Ecuador. Estudios Interdisciplinarios de America Latina y el Caribe, 15, 1-26.

Berkes, F. (2004) Rethinking community-based conservation. Conservation Biology 18: 621-630.

Brandon, K. (1998) Perils to parks: The social context of threats. In: In Parks in peril: People, politics, and protected areas, ed. K. Brandon, K. H. Redford & S. E. Sanderson, pp. 415-440. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Branford, S. & Glock, O. (1985) The Last Frontier: Fighting Over Land in the Amazon. London: Zed Books.

Brito, M. F. (2005) Paraísos perdidos: (o)eco [www document]. URL http://arruda.rits.org.br

Brockington, D., Igoe, J. & Schmidt-Soltau, K. (2006) Conservation, human rights, and poverty reduction. Conservation Biology 20: 250-252.

Brondizio, E. S. & al., e. (2001) The Colonist Footprint: towards a conceptual framework of land use and deforestation trajectories among small farmers in Frontier Amazonia. In: Patterns and Processes of Land Use and Forest Change in the Amazon, ed. C. Wood & e. al.. Gainesville: University of Florida Press.

Brondizio, E. S., E. Moran, P. Mausel & Wu, a. Y. (1996) Land Cover in the Amazon Estuary: linking of thematic mapper with botanical and historical data. Photogrammatic Engeneering and Remote Sensing 62: 921-929.

Brondizio, E. S. & Siqueira, a. A. (1997) From Extractivists to Forest Farmers: Changing Concepts of Caboclo Agroforestry in the Amazon Estuary. Economic Anthropology 18: 233-279.

215

Brondizio, E. S. e. a. (1999) The Colonist Footprint: towards a conceptual framework of land use and deforestation trajectories among small farmers in frontier Amazônia. In: Partterns and Processes of Land Use and Forest Changes in the Amazon, ed. C. W. e. al.. Gainesville: Center for Latin American Studies, University of Florida.

Brosius, J. P. (2004) Indigenous peoples and protected areas at the World Parks Congress. Conservation Biology 18: 609-612.

Browder, J. O. (1990a) Beyond the limits of extraction: tropical forest alternatives to extractive reserves. In: The Rainforest Harvest, vol. 40 (ed.?). London, UK: ?

Browder, J. O. (1990b) Extractive reserves will not save the tropics. BioScience 40: 626.

Browder, J. O. (1992a) The limits of extractivism: tropical forest strategies beyond extractive reserves. BioScience 42: 174-182.

Browder, J. O. (1992b) Social and Economic Contstraints on the Development of Market-Oriented Extractive Reserves in Amazon Rain Forests. In: Non-Timber Products From Tropical Forests: Evaluation of a Conservation and Development Strategy, ed. D. C. Nepstad & S. Schwartzman, pp. 33-43. New York: The New York Botanical Garden.

Brown, I. F. (2004) Significant results of LBA-MAP. Presentation. 20 January 2004. Rio Branco, Acre.

Brown, K. & Resende, S. (2000a) Environmentalists, Rubber Tappers and Empowerment: The

Politics and Economics of Extractive Reserves. Development and Change 31: 201-27.

Brown, K. & Resende, S. (2000b) The institutional architechture of Extractive Reserves. The Geographical Journal 166: 35-48.

Bryant, R. L. & Bailey, S. (1997) Third World Political Ecology. London: Routledge.

Bunker, D. E., DeClerck, F., Bradford, J. C., Colwell, R. K., Perfecto, I., Phillips, O. L., Sankaran, M. & Naeem, S. (2005) Species Loss and Aboveground Carbon Storage in a Tropical Forest. Science 310: 1029-1031.

Bunker, S. G. (1985) Underdeveloping the Amazon: Extraction, unequal exchange, and the failure of the modern state. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Buschbacher, R. (1986) Tropical deforestation and pasture development. Bioscience 36: 22-28.

Calaça, M. (1993) Violência e Resistência: O Movimento dos Seringueiros de Xapuri e a Proposta de Reserva Extrativista. Doctoral Dissertation, Universidade Estadual Paulista, Rio Claro, Brazil.

Caldas, M., Walker, R., Arima, E. Y., Perz, S., Aldrich, S. & Simmons, C. (2007) Theorizing Land Cover and Land Use Change: The Peasant Economy of Amazonian Deforestation. . Annals of the Association of American Geographers 97: 86–110.

216

Campbell, C. (1996) Forest, Field and Factory: Changing Livelihood Strategies in two Extractive Reserves in the Brazilian Amazon. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Florida Gainesville, USA.

Campos, M. T. & Nepstad, D. C. (2006) Smallholders, the Amazon's new conservationists. Conservation Biology 20: 1553-1556.

Cardoso, R. C. L. (1992) Popular Movements in the Context of the Consolidation of Democracy in Brazil. In: The Making of Social Movements in Latin America: Identity, Strategy, and Democrac, ed. A. Escobar & S. E. Alvarez, pp. 291-302. Boulder, Co.: Westview Press.

Cavalcanti, F. d. S. (2002) A Política Ambiental da Amazônia: Um Estudo Sobre as Reservas Extrativistas. Doctoral Dissertation, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, Brazil.

Cernea, M. M. & Schmidt-Soltau, K. (2006) Poverty risks and national parks: Policy issues in conservation and resettlement. World Development 34: 1808-1830.

Chapin, M. (2004) A Challenge to Conservationists. World Watch Institute November/December.

Clay, J. (1992) Some General Principles and Strategies for Developing Markets in North America and Europe for Non-timber Forest Products: Lessons from Cultural Survival Enterprises, 1989-1990. In: Non-Timber Products From Tropical Forests: Evaluation of a Conservation and Development Strategy, ed. D. C. Nepstad & S. Schwartzman, pp. 101-106. New York: The New York Botanical Garden.

Clement, C. R., McCann, J. & Smith, N. (2003) Agrobiodiversity in Amazonia and its Relationship with Dark Earth. In: Amazonian Dark Earths: Origin, Properties, Management, ed. J. Lehmann, D. C. Kern, B. Glaser & W. I. Woods, pp. 159-178. Kluwer: Dordrecht.

CNS. (1985) Primeiro Encontro Nacional de Seringueiros da Amazonia. Brasília, DF: Conselho Nacional dos Seringueiros.

CNS. (1992) Levantamento Socio-Economico das Reservas do Vale do Acre. Rio Branco, AC: Conselho Nacional dos Seringueiros.

Coêlho, E. M. (1982) Acre: O Ciclo da Borracha (1903-1945). Doctoral Dissertation, Universidade Federal Fluminense, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

Colchester, M. (2000) Self-determination or environmental determinism for indigenous peoples

in tropical forest conservation. Conservation Biology 14: 1365-1367.

Corrêa, L. M. (1967) A borracha da Amazônia e a II Guerra Mundial. Manuas, AM: Governo do Estado do Amazonas.

217

Cotta, J. N., Kainer, K. A., Wadt, L. H. O. & Staudhammer, C. L. (2008) Shifting cultivation effects on Brazil nut (Bertholletia excelsa) regeneration. Forest Ecology and Management 256, 28-35.

Cunha, E. d. (1946) À Margem da História. Porto: Livraria Lello & Irmão Editores. .

Daly, D. J. (1990) Extractive Reserves: A Great New Hope. Garden 14: 14-32.

Dean, W. (1987) Brazil and the struggle for rubber: A study in environmental history. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Ehringhaus, C. (2005) Post-Victory-Dilemmas: Land Use, Development, and Social Movement in Amazonian Extractive Reserve. Doctoral Dissertation, Yale University, New Haven, USA.

Euler, A., Millikan, B., Brito, E. B., Cardoso, I. B., Leroy, J. P. L., Caminha, L., Hargreaves, M. I., Motta, R. V., Cunha, S., Matias, S., Alves, V. & Glass, V. (2008) A Devastação das Unidades de Conservação e Terras Indígenas no Estado de Rondônia. Rondônia: Grupo de Trabalho Amazônico - GTA.

Faminow, M. D. (1998) Cattle, deforestation, and development in the Amazon: an economic, agronomic, and environmental perspective. Wallingford, Oxon, UK: CAB International.

Fearnside, P. M. (1986) Human carrying capacity of the Brazilian rain-forest. New York: Columbia University Press.

Fearnside, P. M. (1989) Extractive reserves in Brazilian Amazonia. BioScience 39: 387-393.

Fearnside, P. M. (1992) Reservas Extrativistas: uma estratégia de uso sustentado. Ciência Hoje 14: 15-17.

Fearnside, P. M. (2001a) Land-tenure issues as factors in environmental destruction in Brazilian Amazonia: The case of Southern Para. World Development 29: 1361-1372.

Fearnside, P. M. (2001b) Soybean cultivation as a threat to the environment in Brazil. Environmental Conservation 28: 23-38.

Fearnside, P. M. & Barbosa, R. I. (1998) Soil carbon changes from conversion of forest to pasture in Brazilian Amazonia. Forest Ecology and Management 108: 147-166.

Feitosa, M. L. (1995) Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve. In: Extractive Reserves, ed. M. R. Murrieta & R. P. Rueda, pp. 69-76. Cambridge: IUCN.

Ferraz, G., Russell, G. J., Stouffer, P. C., Bierregaard, R. O., Pimm, S. L. & Lovejoy, T. E. (2003) Rates of species loss from Amazonian forest fragments. PNAS 100: 14069-14073.

218

FUNDASUR (1996) Pre-Seleção das Iniciativas Promissoras de Manejo Florestal na Amazônia, Uruará, Brasil. Unpublished report. Uruará, PA: Fundação para o Desenvolvimento Sustentável de Uruará.

Futemma, C. & Brondizio, E. S. (2003) Land reform and land-use changes in the lower Amazon: implications for agricultural intensification. Human Ecology 31: 369-402.

FVPP (2000) Projeto Consolidação da Produção Familiar Rural e Contenção dos Desmatamentos na Transamazônica e Baixo Xingu. Altamira, PA: Fundação Viver Produzir e Preservar.

Gale, T. (1998) The assault continues: State of the Amazon since Chico Mendes’ death 10 years ago. International Wildlife 1998 (Nov.): 1-6.

Gash, J. H. C., Tani, M. & Bruijnzeel, L. A. (2005) Controls of evaporation in lowland tropical rainforest. In Forests, Water and People in the Humid Tropics. (ed. M. Bonell & L. A. Bruijnzeel), pp. 287-313. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ghimire, K. B. (1994) Parks and People - Livelihood Issues in National-Parks Management in Thailand and Madagascar. Development and Change 25: 195-229.

Gibson, C. C., McKean, M. A. & Ostrom, E., eds (2000) People and forests: communities, institutions, and governance. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

Godoy, R., Lubowski, R. & Markandya, A. (1993) A method for the economic valuation of non-timber tropical forest products. Economic Botany 47: 220-233.

Godoy, R. A. (2000) Valuation and consumption and sale of forest goods from a Central American rainforest. Nature 406: 62-63.

Godoy, R. A., David Wilkie & Franks, a. J. (1997) The Effects of Markets on Neotropical Deforestation: A Comparative Study of Four Amerindian Societies. Current Anthropology 38: 875-878.

Godoy, R. A., et al. (1997) Household determinants of deforestation of deforestation by Amerindians in Honduras. World Development 25: 977-87.

Goeschl, T. & Igliori, D. C. (2004) Reconciling conservation and development: A dynamic hotelling model of extractive reserves. Land Economics 80: 340-354.

Gomes, C. V. A. (2001) Dynamics of Land Use in an Amazonian Extractive Reserve: The Case of the Chico Mendes Reserve Acre, Brazil. Master Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, USA.

Gomes, C. V. A. (2004) Cattle Ranching Expansion Among Rubber Tapper Communities in the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve in the Southwestern Brazilian Amazonia. . Rio Branco, AC: Report for WWF-Brazil. November 2004.

219

Gomes, C. V. A. (2005) The Rubber Tapper’s Rapidly Transitioning Land Use Strategies: Cattle Ranching Expansion in the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve in Southwestern Brazilian Amazonia. In Global Environmental Change, Globalization and International Security: New Challenges for the 21st Century. The 6th Open Meeting of the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change Research Community. Bonn: University of Bonn.

Gomez-Pompa, A. & Kaus, A. (1992) Traditional management of tropical forests in Mexico. In: Alternatives to Deforestation: Steps toward a Sustainable Use of the Amazonian Rain Forest, ed. A. A. Anderson, pp. 43-64. New York, NY: Colombia University Press.

Government of Acre (2000a) Zoneamento ecológico-econômico do Acre: Recursos Naturais e Meio Ambiente, Fase I, Volume I. Rio Branco, Acre, Brazil: Governo do Acre - Secretaria de Estado de Ciência, Tecnologia e Meio Ambiente.

Government of Acre (2000b) Zoneamento ecológico-econômico do Acre: Aspectos Socioeconômicos e Ocupação Territorial, Fase I, Volume II. Rio Branco, Acre, Brazil: Governo do Acre - Secretaria de Estado de Ciência, Tecnologia e Meio Ambiente.

Government of Acre (2005) Acre: The State of Florestania in the Brazilian Amazon. Rio Branco, Acre, Brazil: Governo do Acre.

Government of Acre (2006) Zoneamento ecológico-econômico do Acre: Fase II, 1:250.000. Rio Branco, Acre, Brazil: Governo do Acre - Secretaria de Estado de Meio Ambiente e Recuros Naturais.

Green, G. M., C.M. Schweik, and M. Hanson. (2002) Radiometric calibration of LANDSAT multi-spectral scanner and thematic mapper images: Guideline for the global change community. CIPEC Working Paper. CPW-02-03. Bloomington: CIPEC.

Green, G. M., Schweik, C. M. & Randolph, J. C. (2005) Retrieving land-cover change information from LANDSAT satellite images by minimizing other sources of reflectance variability. In: Seeing the Forest and the Trees, ed. E. F. Moran & E. Ostrom, pp. 131-160. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Grimes, A., Loomis, S., Jahnige, P., Burnham, M., Onthank, K., Alarcon, R., Cuenca, W. P., Martinez, C. C., Neill, D., Balick, M., Bennett, B. & Mendelsohn, R. (1994) Valuing the Rain-Forest - the Economic Value of Nontimber Forest Products in Ecuador. Ambio 23: 405-410.

Guimarães, R. (1991) Ecopolitics of development in the third world. Boulder, CO: L. Reinner Publishers.

Hall, A. (1997) Sustaining Amazonia: Grassroots action for productive conservation. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Harris, M. (2007) Introduction: ways of knowing. In: Ways of knowing: anthropological approaches to crafting experience and knowledge, ed. M. Harris, pp. 1-26. Wiltshire: Berghahn Books.

220

Hecht, S. B. (1985) Environmental, Development and Politics: Capital Accumulation and the Livestock Sector in Eastern Amazonia. World Development 13: 663-684.

Hecht, S. B. & Cockburn, A. (1989) The fate of the forest: Developers, destroyers, and defenders of the Amazon. London: Verso.

Hecht, S. B. & Cockburn, A. (1990) The fate of the forest: Developers, destroyers, and defenders of the Amazon. London: Verso.

Holt, F. L. (2005) The catch-22 of conservation: Indigenous peoples, biologists, and cultural change. Human Ecology 33: 199-215.

Homma, A. K. O. (1989) Reservas extrativistas: uma opção de Desenvolvimento viável para a Amazônia? Pará Desenvolvimento 25: 38-48.

Homma, A. K. O. (1992) The Dynamics of Extraction in Amazonia: A Historical Perspective. In: Non-Timber Products From Tropical Forests: Evaluation of a Conservation and Development Strategy, ed. D. C. Nepstad, pp. 23-33. New York: The New York Botanical Garden.

Homma, A. K. O. (1993) Extrativismo Vegetal na Amazônia: limites e oportunidades. Brasilia, DF: Embrapa-SPI.

Homma, A. K. O. (1994) Plant extractivism in the Amazon: Limitations and possibilities. In: Extractivism in the Brazilian Amazon: Perspectives on Regional Development, ed. M. Clüsener-Godt & I. Sachs, pp. 34-57. MAB Digest Nr. 18, Paris: MAB-UNESCO.

Houghton, R. A. (2005) Tropical deforestation as a source of greenhouse gas emissions. In: Tropical Deforestation and Climate Change, ed. P. Moutinho & S. Schwartzman, pp. 13-21. Belém, PA.: Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazônia.

Humphries, S. S. & Kainer, K. A. (2006) Local perceptions of forest certification for community-based enterprises. Forest Ecology and Management 235: 30-43.

Hutton, J., Adams, W. M. & Murombedzi, J. C. (2005) Back to the barriers? Changing narratives in biodiversity conservation. Forum for Development Studies 32: 341-370.

IBAMA/CNPT (1999) Projeto RESEX: Um Futuro Sustentável para a Amazônia. Brasilia: Ministério do Meio Ambiente/Instituto Brasileiro de Meio Ambiente/Centro nacinonal para as Populaoes Tradicionais.

IBGE (1973) Censo Demográfico do Brasil - 1970 (Demographic Census of Brazil - 1970). Rio de Janeiro: Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística.

IBGE (1996) Censo Demográfico do Brasil - 1991 (Demographic Census of Brazil - 1991). Microdata Sample. Rio de Janeiro: Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística.

221

IBGE (1998) Censo Agropecuário 1995/96 (Agricultural Census of Brazil-1996/96), vol. 2007. Rio de Janeiro: Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística.

IBGE (2007) Censo Agropecuário 2007 (Agricultural Census of Brazil - 1997), vol. 2008. Rio de Janeiro: Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística.

IDB (2002) Brazil: Acre Sustainable Development Program, (BR-0313), Loand Proposal, vol. 2007. Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank.

IDESP (1990) Uruará. Belém, PA: Instituto de Desenvolvimento do Estado do Pará.

IPAM (2004) O Desenvolvimento que Queremos: Ordenamento Territorial da BR-163, Baixo Amazonas, Transamazônica e Xingú. Belém, PA: Instituto de Pesquisa da Amazônia.

ISA (2004) Relatório Encontro BR-163 Sustentável: Desafios e sustentabilidade Socioambiental ao Longo do Eixo Cuiabá-Santarém. Sinop, Mato Grosso: Instituto Socioambiental.

Kainer, K., Schmink, M., Leite, A. C. & Fadell, M. J. (2003) Experiments in Forest-Based Development in Western Amazoni. Society and Natural Resources 16: 869–886.

Kainer, K. A., Duryea, M. L., de Macedo, N. C. & Williams, K. (1998) Brazil nut seedling establishment and autecology in extractive reserves of acre, Brazil. Ecological Applications 8: 397-410.

Kainer, K. A., Wadt, L. H. O. & Staudhammer, C. L. (2007) Explaining variation in Brazil nut fruit production. Forest Ecology and Management 250: 244-255.

Kramer, R. A., Van-Schaik, C. P. & Johnson, J., eds (1997) The last stand: Protected areas and the defense of tropical biodiversity. New York: Oxford University Press

Lambin, E. & Geist, H., eds (2006) Land-Use and Land-Cover Change: Local Processes to Global Impacts. Berlin: Springer.

Laurance, W. F., Lovejoy, T. E., Vasconcelos, H. L., Bruna, E. M., Didham, R. K., Stouffer, P. C., Gascon, C., Bierregaard, R. O., Laurance, S. G. & Sampaio, E. (2002) Ecosystem decay of Amazonian forest fragments: A 22-year investigation. Conservation Biology 16: 605-618.

Laurance, W. F., Vasconcelos, H. L. & Lovejoy, T. E. (2000) Forest loss and fragmentation in the Amazon: implications for wildlife conservation. Oryx 34: 39-45.

Laurence, W. F. & Fearnside, P. M. (2002) Issues in Amazonian development. Science 295: 1643-1643.

Lima, R. C. A., Miranda, S. H. G. & Galli, F. (2005) Frebe aftosa: impactos sobre as exportações brasileiras de carnes e o contexto mundial das barreiras sanitárias São Paulo: Icone/Cepea.

222

Ludewigs, T. (2006) Land-Use Decision Making, Uncertainty and Effectiveness of Land Refor in Acre, Brazilian Amazon. Doctoral Dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington, USA.

Mahar, D. J. (1979) Frontier development policy in Brazil: A study of Amazonia. New York: Paeger Publishers.

MAPA. (2005) Programa Nacional de Erradicação da Febre Aftosa: Relatório Anual 2005. Brasília, DF: Governo Brasileiro - Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento.

Martinello, P. (1988) A "Batalha da Borracha" na segunda guerra mundial e suas conseqüências para o vale amazônico. Cadernos UFAC Série C: 13-365.

Maxwell, K. (2003) Naked Tropics: Essays on Empire and Other Rogues. London: Routledge.

Medina, G. (2006) Castanheiros x grileiros: conflito na última fronteira florestal do Pará. Ciência Hoje 38: 60-63.

Mertens, B., Poccard-Chapuis, R., Piketty, M. G., Lacques, A. E. & Venturieri, A. (2002) Crossing spatial analyses and livestock economics to understand deforestation processes in the Brazilian Amazon: the case of Sao Felix do Xingu in South Para. Agricultural Economics 27: 269-294.

Michelotti, F. (2000) Beneficiamento local da produção extrativista e agroflorestal: o caso da Cooperativa Agroextrativista de Xapuri. Novos Cadernos Naea 3: 17-44.

MMA (2000) Sistema Nacional de Unidades de Conservação - SNUC Brasília, DF: Ministério do Meio Ambiente.

MMA (2002) Biodiversity and Forests of Brazil. Brasília, DF: Ministério do Meio Ambiente.

Moegenburg, S. M. & Levey, D. J. (2002) Prospects for conserving biodiversity in Amazonian extractive reserves. Ecology Letters 5: 320-324.

Moran, E. (1981) Developing the Amazon. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Moran, E. F. (2000) Human Adaptability: An Introduction to Ecological Anthropology. . Boulder: Westview Press.

Moran, E. F. & Ostrom, E., eds (2005) Seeing the forest and the trees: human-environment interactions in forest ecosystems. Cambridge, Mass: Mit Press.

Murrieta, J. R. & Rueda, R. P., eds (1995) Extractive Reserves. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN-CNPT-EU.

Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., Fonseca, G. A. B. & Kent, J. (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403: 853-858.

223

Nepstad, D., Carvalho, G., Barros, A. C., Alencar, A., Capobianco, J. P., Bishop, J., Moutinho, P., Lefebvre, P., Silva, U. L. & Prins, E. (20010 Road paving, fire regime feedbacks, and the future of Amazon forests. Forest Ecology and Management 154: 395-407.

Nepstad, D., Moreira, A., Verissimo, A., Lefebvre, P., Schlesinger, P., Potter, C., Nobre, C., Setter, A., Krug, T., Barros, A. C., Alencar, A. & Pereira, J. R. (1998) Forest fire prediction and prevention in the Brazilian Amazon. Conservation Biology 12: 951-953.

Nepstad, D., Schwartzman, S., Bamberger, B., Santilli, M., Ray, D., Schlesinger, P., Lefebvre, P., Alencar, A., Prinz, E., Fiske, G. & Rolla, A. (2006a) Inhibition of Amazon deforestation and fire by parks and indigenous lands. Conservation Biology 20: 65-73.

Nepstad, D. C., McGrath, D., Alencar, A., Barros, A. C., Carvalho, G., Santilli, M. & Vera Diaz, M. d. C. (2002) Frontier Governance in Amazonia. Science 295: 629-631.

Nepstad, D. C. & Schwartzman, S., eds (1992) Non-Timbert Products From Tropical Forests: Evaluation of a Conservation and Development Strategy. Bronx, New York.: The New York Botanical Garden.

Nepstad, D. C., Stickler, C. M. & Almeida, O. T. (2006b) Globalization of the Amazon soy and beef industries: Opportunities for conservation. Conservation Biology 20: 1595-1603.

Nobre, C. A., Sellers, P. J. & Shukla, J. (1991) Amazonian deforestation and regional climate change. Journal of Climate Change 4: 957-988.

Nugent, A. (1993) Amazonian caboclo society: an essay on invisibility and peasant economy. Oxford: Berg.

Nunes, J. R. P. (1991) Modernização da agricultura – pecuarização e mudanças: o caso do Alto Purus. Rio Branco-Acre: Editora Tico-Tico LTDA.

Oates, J. F. (1999) Myth and Reality in the Rain Forest: How Conservation Strategies Are Failing in West Africa. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Oliveira, L. A. P. (1985) O Sertanejo, o Brabo e o Posseiro: cem anos de andanças da população acreana. Rio Branco, Acre: Governo do Estado do Acre.

Olmos, F. (2006) As Reservas Extratavistas são Unidades de Conservação?: (o)eco [www document]. URL http://arruda.rits.org.br

Ostrom, E. (1990) Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pacheco, P. (2005) Populist and Capitalist Frontiers in the Amazon: Diversity Dynamics of Agrarian and Land-Use Change. Doctoral Dissertation, Clark University, Worcester, USA.

Palmer, C. (2002) An overview of environmental ethics. In: Environmental Ethics: An Antholog, ed. A. Light & H. Halston. Malden: Blackwell Publishers.

224

Paula, E. A. (1991) Seringueiros e Sindicatos: um Povo da Floresta em Busca de Liberdade. Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

Paula, E. A. (2005) (Des) envolvimento insustentável na Amazônia Ocidental: dos missionários do progresso aos mercadores da natureza. Rio Branco-Acre: EDUFAC.

Paula, E. A. & Silva, S. S., eds (2006) Trajetórias da luta camponesa na Amazônia-Acreana. Rio Branco-Acre: EDUFAC.

Peres, C. A. (2005) Why we need megareserves in Amazonia. Conservation Biology 19: 728-733.

Perz, S. G. (2001a) From Sustainable Development to "Productive Conservation:"Forest Conservation Options and Agricultural Income and Assets in the Brazilian Amazon. Rural Sociology 66: 93-112.

Perz, S. G. (2001b) Household demographic factors as life cycle determinants of land use in the Amazon. Population Research and Policy Review. 00: 1-28.

Perz, S. G. (2002) The Changing Social Contexts of Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Social Sciences Quarterly 83: 35-52.

Perz, S. G. (2003) Social determinants and land use correlates of agricultural technology adoption in a forest frontier: A case study in the Brazilian Amazon. Human Ecology 31: 133-165.

Perz, S. G. (2004) Are agricultural production and forest conservation compatible? Agricultural diversity, agricultural incomes and primary forest cover among small farm colonists in the Amazon. World Development 32: 957-977.

Perz, S. G., Caldas, M. M., Arima, E. & Walker, R. J. (2007) Unofficial road building in the Amazon: Socioeconomic and biophysical explanations. Development and Change 38: 529-551.

Perz, S. G. & Walker, R. T. (2002) Household life cycles and secondary forest cover among small farm colonists in the Amazon. World Development 30: 1009-1027.

Perz, S. G., Walker, R. T. & Caldas, M. M. (2006) Beyond population and environment: Household demographic life cycles and land use allocation among small farms in the Amazon. Human Ecology 34: 829-849.

Peters, C. M., Gentry, A. H. & Mendelsohn, R. O. (1989) Valuation of an Amazonian rainforest. Nature 339: 655-656.

Pimm, S. L., Ayres, M., Balmford, A., Branch, G., Brandon, K. & others, a. (2001) Can We Defy Nature's End? Science 293: 2207-2208.

Rancy, C. M. D. (1992) Raízes do Acre (1870-1912). Rio Branco: Editora Paim.

225

Redford, K. H. & Brosius, J. P. (2006) Diversity and homogenization in the endgame. Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions 16: 317-319.

Redford, K. H. & Painter, M. (2006) Natural alliances between conservationists and indigenous peoples. In WCS Working Paper No. 25.

Redford, K. H., Robinson, J. G. & Adams, W. M. (2006) Parks as shibboleths. Conservation Biology 20: 1-2.

Redford, K. H. & Sanderson, S. E. (2000) Extracting humans from nature. Conservation Biology 14: 1362-1364.

Rego, J. F. (1999) Amazonia: do Extrativismo ao Neoextrativismo. Ciencia Hoje 25: 147.

Rêgo, J. F., Costa Filho, O. S. & Braga, R. R. A. (2003) Análise econômica dos sistemas de produção familiar rural da região do Vale do Acre, 1996/1997. Rio Branco, Acre, Brazil: UFAC/SEBRAE/Ford Foundation.

Revkin, A. (1990) The burning season: the murder of Chico Mendes and the fight for the Amazon rainforest: Houghton Mifflim.

Ribeiro, B., Veríssimo, A. & Pereira, K. (2005) O Avanço do Desmatamento sobre as Áreas Protegidas de Rondônia. O Estado da Amazônia, pp. 4. Belém, PA: IMAZON.

Rockwell, C., Kainer, K. A., Marcondes, N. & Baraloto, C. (2007a) Ecological limitations of reduced-impact logging at the smallholder scale. Forest Ecology and Management 238: 365-374.

Rockwell, C. A., Kainer, K. A., Staudhammer, C. L. & Baraloto, C. (2007b) Future crop tree damage in a certified community forest in southwestern Amazonia. Forest Ecology and Management 242: 108-118.

Rueda, B. L., Blake, R. W., Nicholson, C. F., Fox, D. G., Tedeschi, L. O., Pell, A. N., Fernandes, E. C. M., Valentim, J. F. & Carneiro, J. C. (2003) Production and economic potentials of cattle in pasture-based systems of the western Amazon region of Brazil. Journal of Animal Science 81: 2923-2937.

Ruiz-Perez, M., Almeida, M., Dewi, S., Costa, E. M. L., Pantoja, M. C., Puntodewo, A., Postigo, A. D. & de Andrade, A. G. (2005) Conservation and development in Amazonian extractive reserves: The case of Alto Jurua. Ambio 34: 218-223.

Rylands, A. B. & Brandon, K. (2005) Brazilian protected area. Conservation Biology 19: 612-618.

Salafsky, N., Dugelby, B. L. & Terborgh, J. W. (1993) Can extractive reserves save the rainforest? An ecological comparison of non-timber forest product extraction systems in el Petén, Guatemala, and West Kalimantan, Indonesia. Conservation Biology 7: 39-52.

226

Salati, E. & Nobre, C. A. (1991) Possible climate impacts of tropical deforestation. Climate Change 19: 177–196.

Sanderson, S. & Redford, K. (2004) The defence of conservation is not an attack on the poor. Oryx 38: 146-147.

Santos, R. (1980) História Econômica da Amazônia (1800–1920). São Paulo, SP: T. A. Queiroz.

Sassagawa, H. S. (1999) Técnicas de Sensoriamento Remoto e Sistema de Informações Geográficas (SIG) para Estudo de Ocupação do Espaço Físico e dos Tipos Florestais da Reserva Extrativista Chico Mendes, Estado do Acre. Master Thesis, Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais, São José dos Campos, Brazil.

Schmidt-Soltau, K. (2004) The costs of rainforest conservation: local responses towards integrated conservation and development projects in Cameroon. Journal of Contemporary African Studies 22: 93-117.

Schmidt-Soltau, K. & Brockington, D. (2007) Protected Areas and Resettlement: What Scope for Voluntary Relocation? World Development 35: 2182–2202.

Schmink, M. & Wood, C. (1984) Frontier Expansion in Amazonia. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Press.

Schmink, M. & Wood, C. (1992) Contested Frontiers in Amazonia. New York: Columbia University Press.

Schwartzman, S. (1989) Extractive reserves: the rubber tappers' strategy for sustainable use of the Amazon rain forest. In: Fragile Lands in Latin America: Strategies for Sustainable Development, ed. J. O. Browder, pp. 150-165. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Schwartzman, S. (1991) Deforestation and popular resistance in Acre: from local movement to global network. The Centennial Review 25: 397-422.

Schwartzman, S. (1992) Land Distribution and the Social Costs of Frontier Development in Brazil: Social and Historical Context of Extractive Reserves. In: Non-Timber Products From Tropical Forests: Evaluation of a Conservation and Development Strategy, ed. D. C. Nepstad & S. Schwartzman, pp. 51-66. New York: The New York Botanical Garden.

Schwartzman, S., Moreira, A. & Nepstad, D. (2000a) Rethinking tropical forest conservation: Perils in parks. Conservation Biology 14: 1351-1357.

Schwartzman, S., Nepstad, D. & Moreira, A. (2000b) Arguing tropical forest conservation: People versus parks. Conservation Biology 14: 1370-1374.

Schwartzman, S. & Zimmerman, B. (2005) Conservation alliance with indigenous peoples of the Amazon. Conservation Biology 19: 712-727.

227

Schwartzmann, S., Moreira, A. & Nepstad, D. (2000a) Rethinking tropical conservation: peril in parks. Conservation Biology 14: 1351-1357.

Schwartzmann, S., Nepstad, D. & Moreira, A. (2000b) Arguing tropical forest conservation: people versus parks. Conservation Biology 14: 1370-1374.

Serrão, E. A. S., Falesi, I. C., Veiga, J. B. & Neto, J. F. T. (1978) Productivity of pastures grown in low fertility soils of the forest areas of the Brazilian humid tropics. Belém: Centro de Pesquisa Agropecuária do Tropico Úmido.

Serrão, E. A. S. & Homma, K. O. (1993) Brazil. In: Sustainable agriculture and the environment in the humid tropics, ed. N. R. C. (U.S.)., pp. 265-351. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press.

Silva, A. F. (1990) Raízes da ocupação recente das terras do Acre: movimento de capitais, especulação fundiária e disputa pela terra. Rio Branco-Acre: Casa da Amazônia.

Silva, M. (2005) The Brazilian Protected Areas Program. Conservation Biology 19: 608-611.

Silva, S. S. (2003) Na fronteira agropecuária acreana. Rio Branco-Acre: LEUPAG-DEGEO/UFAC.

Simmons, C. S., Walker, R. T., Arima, E. Y., Aldrich, S. P. & Caldas, M. M. (2007) The amazon land war in the south of pará. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 97: 567-592.

Skole, D. & Tucker, a. C. (1993) Tropical deforestation and habitat fragmentation in the Amazon: satellite data from 1978 to 1988. Science 260: 1905-1910.

Smeraldi, R. & May, P. (2008) O Reino do Gado: Uma Nova Fase na Pecuarização da Amazônia Brasileira. São Paulo: Amigos da Terra-Amazônia Brasileira.

Smith, N. (1982) Rainforest Corridors: The Transamazon Colonization Scheme. Berkeley, CA: University of California Pres.

Smith, N. (20010 Land Use Dynamics in the Amazon Estuary and Implications for Resource Management. Amazonia 16: 517-537.

Smith, N. J. H., Serrão, E. A. S., Alvim, P. & Falesi, I. C. (1995) Amazonia: Resiliency and dynamism of the land and its people. Tokyo, New York, Paris: United Nations University Press.

Sobrinho, P. V. C. (19920 Capital e trabalho na Amazônia Ocidental: contribuião à história social e das sindicais no Acre. São Paulo: Cortez.

228

Souza, F. K. A. (2006) Effectiveness of Extractive Reserves, Agro-Extractive Reserves and Colonist Settlements in Southwestern Amazonia: An Economic and Land Cover Comparison of Three Land Tenure Types in Acre, Brazil. Master Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, USA.

Steffen, W. L., Sanderson, A. & Tyson, P. D. (2004) Global Change and the Earth System: a Planet Under Pressure. Berlin: Springer.

Stokes, C. E. (2000) The Amazon Bubble: World Rubber Monopoly. Fort McKavett: Charles Stokes.

Stone, S. S. (2003) From Tapping to Cutting Trees: Participation and Agency in two Community-Based Timber Management Projects in Acre, Brazil. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville, USA.

Terborgh, J. (1999) Requiem for nature. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Terborgh, J. (2000) The fate of tropical forests: a matter of stewardship. Conservation Biology 14: 1258-1361.

Terborgh, J. & Peres, C. A. (2002) The problem of people in parks. In: Making Parks Work: Strategies for Preserving Tropical Nature, ed. J. Terborgh, C. Van Schaik, L. Davenport & M. Rao., pp. 307-319. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Terborgh, J. & Van Schaik, C. (2002) Why the world needs parks. In: Making Parks Work: Strategies for Preserving Tropical Nature, ed. J. Terborgh, C. Van Schaik, L. Davenport & M. Rao., pp. 3-14. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Tocantins, L. (1979) Formação Histórica do Acre. Rio de Janeiro: Civilização Brasileira.

Toni, F. (1999) Relations on the Agricultural Frontier: The Struggle for Credit in the Transamazônica Region. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville, USA.

Toni, F. (2003) Uruará: Pecuarização na fronteira agrícola. In: Municípios e gestão florestal na Amazônia, ed. F. Toni & D. Kaimowitz, pp. 175-217. Natal, Brasil: A.S. Editores.

Toni, F. (2007) Dinâmica da pecuária na região de fronteira agrícola do Alto Rio Acre. Brasília, DF: UnB.

Toni, F. & Souza, C. A. (2003) Xapuri: Movimentos sociais no poder. In: Municípios e gestão florestal na Amazônia, ed. F. Toni & D. Kaimowitz, pp. 337-372. Natal, Brazil: A.S. Editores.

Tourrand, J. F. & Veiga, J. B., eds (2003) Viabilidade de sistemas agropecuários na agricultura familiar da Amazônia. Belém: EMBRAPA Amazônia Oriental.

229

Tucker, C. (2004) Aiming for sustainable community forest management: The experiences of two communities in Mexico and Honduras. In: Working Forests in the NeoTropics: Conservation Through Sustainable Management?, ed. D. J. Zarin, J. R. R. Alavalapati, F. E. Putz & M. Schmink, pp. 178-199. New York: Columbia University Press.

Vadjunec, J. M. (2007) The Role of Institutions in Land-Use/Cover-Change in the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve, Acre, Brazil. Doctoral Dissertation, Clark University, Worcester, USA.

Vadjunec, J. M., Gomes, C. V. A. & Ludewigs, T. (nd) Land-use/land-cover change among rubber tappers in the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve, Acre, Brazil.

Valentim, J. F. & Andrade, C. M. S. (2005) Tropical kudzu (Pueraria phaseoloides): successful adoption in sustainable cattle production systems in the western Brazilian Amazon. Tropical Grasslands 39: 221-221.

Valentim, J. F., Sá, C. P., Gomes, F. C. R. & Santos, J. C. (2002) Tendências da pecuária bovina no Acre entre 1970 e 2000. Boletim de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento n 38. Rio Branco, Acre, Brazil: Embrapa Acre.

Van Schaik, C. (2002) Anarchy and parks: dealing with political instability. In: Making Parks Work: Strategies for Preserving Tropical Nature, ed. J. Terborgh, C. Van Schaik, L. Davenport & M. Rao., pp. 352-363. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Van Schaik, C. & Rijksen, H. D. (2002) Integrated conservation and development projects: problems and potential. In: Making Parks Work: Strategies for Preserving Tropical Nature, ed. J. Terborgh, C. Van Schaik, L. Davenport & M. Rao., pp. 15-29. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Veiga, J. B., Tourrand, J. F., Piketty, M. G., Poccard-Chapuis, R., Alves, A. M. & Thales, M. C. (2004) Expansão e trajetórias da pecuária na Amazônia, Pará, Brasil. Brasília: UnB.

Viana, J. (2004) Foreword. In: Working Forests in the Neotropics: Conservation Through Sustainable Management?, ed. D. J. Zarin, J. R. R. Alavalapati, F. E. Putz & M. Schmink. New York: Columbia University Press.

Wadt, L. H. O., Kainer, K. A. & Gomes-Silva, D. A. P. 92005) Population structure and nut yield of a Bertholletia excelsa stand in Southwestern Amazonia. Forest Ecology and Management 211: 371-384.

Wadt, L. H. O., Kainer, K. A., Staudhammer, C. L. & Serrano, R. O. P. (2008) Sustainable forest use Brazilian extractive reserves: Natural regeneradon of Brazil nut in exploited populations. Biological Conservation 141: 332-346.

Walker, R., Moran, E. & Anselin, L. (2000) Deforestation and cattle ranching in the Brazilian Amazon: External capital and household processes. World Development 28: 683-699.

230

Wallace, R. (2004) The Effects of Wealth and Markets on Rubber Tapper Use and Knowledge of Forest Resources in Acre, Brazil. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville, USA.

Watson, R. T., Noble, I. R., Bolin, B., Ravindranath, N. H., Verardo, D. J. & Dokken, D. J., eds (2000) Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry 2000. Cambridge, UK.: Cambridge University Press.

WCED (1987) Our Common Future. World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Weinstein, B. (1983) The Amazon Rubber Boom, 1850 -1920. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

West, P. & Brockington, D. (2006) An anthropological perspective on some unexpected consequences of protected areas. Conservation Biology 20: 609-616.

West, P., Igoe, J. & Brockington, D. (2006) Parks and peoples: The social impact of protected areas. Annual Review of Anthropology 35: 251-277.

Wilkie, D. S., Morelli, G. A., Demmer, J., Starkey, M., Telfer, P. & Steil, M. (2006) Parks and people: Assessing the human welfare effects of establishing protected areas for biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology 20: 247-249.

Wilshusen, P. R., Brechin, S. R., Fortwangler, C. L. & West, P. C. (2002) Reinventing a square wheel: Critique of a resurgent "protection paradigm'' in international biodiversity conservation. Society & Natural Resources 15: 17-40.

Wood, C. & Porro, R. (ed.) (2002) Deforestation and Land Use in the Amazon. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Press.

Wu, X. B., Thurow, T. L. & Whisenant, S. G. (2000) Fragmentation and changes in hydrologic function of tiger bush landscapes, southwest Niger. Journal of Ecology 88: 790-800.

Zarin, D. J., Alavalapati, J. R. R., Putz, F. E. & Schmink, M., eds (2004) Working Forests in the Neotropics: Conservation Through Sustainable Management? New York: Columbia University Press.

231

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Carlos Valério A. Gomes was born in Ourém, State of Pará, Brazil. As the son of an

eastern Amazonian farmer, he did what most teenagers in this region did growing up: worked in

the fields planting and harvesting crops, and rode horses and herded cattle while attending high

school. In 1989, he moved to Rio Branco, State of Acre in the southwestern Amazon. He

received his undergraduate degree in Geography in 1995 from the Federal University of Acre

(UFAC). Post-graduation, he worked as an associate researcher with the Zoobotanical Park of

UFAC and as a consultant to the Extractive Reserves Project/Pilot Program for the Protection of

the Brazilian Rainforests (PPG-7), contracted by the United Nations Development Program

(UNDP). A Fulbright Fellowship (Amazon Basin Program) brought him to the University of

Florida (UF) where he received a master’s degree in Latin American studies with a concentration

in tropical conservation and development in 2001. His graduate research with forest dwellers in

the southwestern Brazilian Amazon focuses on Extractive Reserves as a people-based

conservation model. His work broadly addresses changing livelihood strategies among

extractivist people, land-use/land-cover change, socioeconomic drivers of deforestation, and

development policy for sustainable livelihoods in the region. In 2007, he worked as a researcher-

trainer with one of UF’s partner NGO (Pesacre) in Rio Branco-Acre to analyze a payment for

environmental services program for smallholders in the Brazilian Amazon, as part of the ALFA

(Alliance for Amazon and Atlantic Forest) Consortium program, financed by the USAID-Brazil

Environment Program. Upon completion of his doctoral program in Geography at UF, Valério

intends to return to the Brazilian Amazon to continue his career working at the interface of

applied research, sustainable development strategies for forest dwellers, and regional

environmental/development policy formation.